Oh, America! What are you doing to yourself? #tcot
Federal Court OKs Police banning applicants whose IQs are TOO HIGH
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
Geez. So the leader of the Department of Justice, arguably one of the most skilled litigators in the nation, and his argument is: “Ya’ll racist.” Good grief.
This liberal, progressive, Obama supporter and federal employee forced a 6 year old to have sex with pets. She had sex with the pets too, naturally.
Am I making an accusation against ALL liberals, Obama supporters, or federal employees? Of course not. But the growing number of liberal, progressive government workers that are into some REALLY weird stuff is growling exponentially…
A militia has set up a command center south of San Antonio to prepare for what they say is a mission to protect the United States from the influx of illegal immigrants.
“This is not the CBP [Customs and Border Protection] or another federal agency renting or leasing an aircraft, these are the same planes that the American public uses for domestic travel.”
Illegals Continue To Walk All Over Obama, Now With Obama-Themed Shoes
Some of the illegal immigrants surging across the U.S. border from Central America and creating a growing humanitarian crisis may be wearing tennis shoes emblazoned with images in praise of President Barack Obama, according to Dennis Michael Lynch at his website, DLM Daily.
“I’ve received two sets of photos from two contacts at the border,” Lynch explains. “I cannot validate the authenticity of the pictures. But I can say the agents who sent these to me is among a handful of agents who have sent me accurate information over the past few months.”
The agent works at a processing center in South Texas that is managing the massive inflow of illegal immigrants, Lynch says.
“For people who may think this is a fake picture, notice the shoe laces. We make everyone remove their laces,” Lynch’s unidentified contact said.
It’s not clear who would have distributed the shoes.
Whistleblower testifies to Congress that he was punished after alerting White House to VA wrongdoing
Four VA whistleblowers testified before Congress that they faced retaliation after exposing wrongdoing at the agency. This is a big story both because it shows how systemic the corruption is at the Department of Veterans Affairs and, in one case, directly implicates the White House.
YAAASSS DRAG THEM OBAMA
Y’all don’t know how to drive either.Open Ended Warfare
One of the most disastrous and destructive aspects of the Bush Administration was a ramping up of the military-industrial complex to a level unprecedented in U.S. history. Bush’s Global War on Terror worried critics because of its lack of clear objectives, no set timeline, and no specific enemy (as terror is a tactic, not an enemy). Along with it came the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare against countries that had not attacked the United States, which formed the foundation— along with a few lies and sketchy intelligence— for the massive, costly, and deadly war in Iraq.
The antiwar movement in America reached a fever pitch under President Bush, and rightly so, but has Obama put an end to this tragic era in American history? He could be forgiven if he had merely taken some time to draw down troops in the Middle East and abroad, but instead, within his first term Obama has actually taken Bush’s war machine and put it in overdrive, sending significantly more troops to fight overseas, spending more money on “defense” than even Bush, and engaging the U.S. in even more conflicts on more fronts, sometimes even ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers (i.e. breaking the law) in order to pursue warfare on a level unmatched by the worst excesses of the Bush Administration:
1. Iraq - We should have known in 2008 that we wouldn’t see any real change from the Obama Administration. Despite campaigning for the U.S. Senate in 2004 on a platform of voting against Bush’s war budgets, when he became a Senator, Obama voted for every single one of Bush’s requests to continue funding war in the Middle East. Apparently, his streak of broken promises started long before campaigning for the White House (and we’ll get to those later down the list).
Then right off the bat in February of 2009, a mere month into his administration, President Obama revealed a phony withdrawal plan that would take three months longer than promised, and leave a whopping 50,000 troops in Iraq (out of the 135,000 that were there when Obama assumed office). Eight months later in October 2009, 131,000 troops remained in Iraq, and Obama sent another 1000 at the request of theater commanders in Iraq. Seriously.
2. First Surge in Afghanistan - Think Iraq was bad? It gets better! Mr. (Blind) Hope and (Regime) Change kicked off his presidency with a 17,000 troop surge to Afghanistan in February of 2009. 17,000! Don’t defend him. Don’t say it was necessary to help win the war there. You would not have defended Bush and you know it. Mr. Obama started his presidency by radically escalating Bush’s war.
3. Second Surge in Afghanistan - But wait- there’s more! By December of 2009, less than a year into his presidency, Obama decided to outdo even himself and send another whopping30,000 troops to Afghanistan! By this point, Al-Qaeda was scattered and devastated. Our troops were overseas fighting someone else’s civil war, not defending our freedoms or our safety.
4. Phony Afghan Withdrawal - In June of 2011, Obama announced a “troop withdrawal” from Afghanistan, and true to form, it was as phony as his Iraq withdrawal. Even if he stays on schedule and makes the most “radical” withdrawal on the table by the end of 2012— 30,000 troops— there would still be more than twice as many troops as there were in January 2009 when Obama took office. Only in the Orwellian world of U.S. foreign policy could something like that be called a withdrawal.
5. The Rise of Drone Warfare - The Obama Administration’s continued and extensive use of weaponized aerial drones to bomb enemy targets in countries throughout the Middle East (sometimes resulting in the deaths of dozens of civilians at a time when the drone operators or intelligence make a mistake) has touched off a drone arms race with the rest of the world, most notably China. Great. Just great.
6. Bombing Campaign in Yemen - Bush bombed in Yemen, but Obama’s really been stepping it up.
7. Bombing Campaign in Somalia - In Somalia too!
8. Bombing Campaign in Pakistan - Under Obama, there have been more drone strikes in Pakistan than there ever were under Bush, and they’re also claiming more civilians lives, Pakistanis claim, leading the country into uproar and protest against the United States.
9. Bombing Campaign in Libya - In March of 2011, President Obama took America to war in an entirely new country, Libya, taking sides with insurgents in a civil war against a dictator that Washington has supported for years up until now. Expanding Bush’s old wars wasn’t enough it would seem; Obama had to start some new ones of his own, against a country that had not attacked us and did not threaten us. And get this: in all likelihood, we’ve been fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda in Libya’s civil war!
10. Defense Spending Levels - “Defense” spending has only gone up during President Obama’s first term from $616 billion under Bush in 2008 to $768 billion in 2011, and Obama still wantseven more. We were promised change. Why are we spending even more on bombs and bullets?
11. Record Casualty Levels - Under Obama, the wars haven’t just gotten bigger, more numerous, and even more legally dubious than under Bush (more on that later)— they’ve gotten deadlier. According to the most up-to-date figures as of this publication, under Obama, the U.S. casualty rate in Afghanistan is five times greater than it was under Bush.
12. “Overseas Contingency Operations” - Despite ramping the Global War on Terror up to unprecedented levels as detailed above, the Obama Administration decided to seriously downplay its title by renaming it “Overseas Contingency Operations.” Chillingly Orwellian, isn’t it? And quite typically Obama: make no substantive changes at all (other than to make things worse and accelerate the damage done by Bush), but do make a big deal about changing a name or a logo!
13. God and War Rhetoric - To wrap up Obama’s continuation of Bush’s foreign policy, I give you none other than Jon Stewart, marveling at how similar Obama’s war rhetoric is to Bush’s, even to the point of invoking God in our fight against other countries, and “refusing to apologize” for our way of life (which apparently includes bombing everybody else):
The Vast Police State
Bush critics consider his presidency to have inaugurated an era unprecedented in U.S. history for violations of civil liberties, privacy, and the constitutional amendments that protect Americans from unwarranted police actions by the government. The creation of a vast, “national security” state has alarmed critics as something more akin to fascist dictatorship than American republicanism. Yet all of Bush’s worst and most tyrannical abuses have not only been continued by the Obama Administration, but taken to a whole new level:
14. The Patriot Act - A favorite target of Bush critics, the Patriot Act violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments of the Constitution. Passed and renewed over and over again with little debate or deliberation, this gargantuan bill gave the federal government sweeping new powers to police its citizenry while ignoring the constitutional restrictions our Founding Fathers created to protect us from tyranny.
It should be no surprise that after the failed efforts of one honest Republican senator to prevent its passage, Obama renewed the Patriot Act (from across the Atlantic Ocean by autopen) as president— he voted for its renewal as a senator. On one of the most important issues of our era, Obama is indistinguishable from Bush. He supports the (un)Patriot(ic) Act.
15. The TSA - Created by an act of Congress during the Bush Administration, and organized within the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA has been annoying and harassing passengers at airports for a decade now. But under President Obama, it has become more aggressive and oppressive than it ever was under Bush, with the installment of dozens of radiation-emitting “naked body scanners” throughout the country and directives from the DHS to use “enhanced” pat downs that many critics say amount to sexual assault. Under Bush, the TSA was merely annoying. Under Obama, it is horrifyingly out of control.
16. The War on Drugs - The decades-long “War on Drugs” has been a spectacular failure of public policy, resulting in billions of wasted dollars, record levels of incarceration, higher rates of drug fatalities, and the creation of a violent international criminal drug cartel that thrives on continued prohibition. The 2009 Ogden Memo signaled that Obama might change course in the failed “War on Drugs.” Nope. In July 2011, the Justice Department published a new memo indicating that things would stay just the same as they were under George W. Bush.
17. CIA Rendition - The CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program consists of seizing “terror suspects,” detaining them without warrant or trial, and sending them offshore to outsource their “interrogation” to third world countries where they are tortured for information and confessions. Seriously. Torture was one of the big criticisms faced by the Bush Administration, and in February 2009, the Obama Administration wasted no time in quietly retaining the practice of rendition.
18. Habeas Corpus - The Obama Administration also continued Bush’s suspension of the long-standing legal tradition of habeas corpus, insisting that it has the right to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial.
19. You Do Not Have The Right To Remain Silent - The Obama Administration actually had the gall to ask ”the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.”
20. …or Test Genetic Evidence Used Against You -The Obama Administration has also limited “the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.”
21. The DHS and Swine Flu - The Obama Administration further empowered the growing police state and set a chilling precedent when it let the Department of Homeland Security manage a health issue, a strain of flu referred to as “swine flu.” the DHS declared a state of emergency in the U.S. and got out in front of the (manufactured) swine flu “crisis.”Disregard for the Constitutionand Unchecked Executive Power
President Bush will be forever remembered by critics for his “imperial presidency,” his usurpation of power from the other branches of government in violation of the Constitution. Instead of a nation guided by laws, under Bush our country descended even further into the lawless anarchy of executive tyranny, unchecked by the other branches of government and unrestrained by the Constitution. An autocrat, Bush did as he pleased, whether the law permitted it or not. Obama has been no different. Actually, he’s been worse:
22. Faith-Based Initiatives - Obama curiously continued Bush’s unconstitutional faith-based initiatives (ever heard of the First Amendment?).
23. Signing Statements - On the campaign trail, Obama calledpresidential “signing statements” (letters of interpretation and recommendations attached to Congressional legislation) unconstitutional and promised not to use them… then attached a signing statement to a $410 billion spending bill as president. If you want to know why this is a dangerous usurpation of power by the executive, click that first link above and Obama will it explain it to you himself. This also counts as a broken promise, which you’ll read plenty more of soon.
24. Hillary Clinton Appointment - Unconstitutional. If you think I’m splitting hairs, you can bite me.
25. War in Libya - We already touched on this as one of Obama’s expansions to Bush’s open-ended warfare, but I didn’t mention one key thing: this was was completely unconstitutional. Obama went to war in Libya without a formal declaration from Congress— without even consulting Congress— and according to both the War Powers Resolution and the U.S. Constitution itself, it is only the people’s representatives in Congress that can take our nation to war, not the president alone.
Even Obama’s own defense secretary said that America faced no imminent threat from Libya. Here are Obama’s own words on the matter back when he was a senator:"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
And nobody should be driving.
So fuck off with this shit. Both Obama and Bush are screwed, and if any of this bullshit post’s reposters have an ounce of intellectual honesty, you’ll admit it. Come back to me when you’re willing to cut your chains.
6.1% unemployment? Not so fast…
For those of you celebrating those job numbers that came out recently. You might want to consider the following: A record number of Americans, 92,120,000, are not in the work force.
The number of Americans 16 and older who did not participate in the labor force climbed to a record high of 92,120,000 in June, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
This means that there were 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older who not only did not have a job, but did not actively seek one in the last four weeks.
That is up 111,000 from the 92,009,000 Americans who were not participating in the labor force in April.
In June, according to BLS, the labor force participation rate for Americans was 62.8 percent, matching a 36-year low. The participation rate is the percentage of the population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.
Obama Lawsuit: Complete text of the letter Speaker John A. Boehner sent Wednesday to House members
To: House Colleagues
From: Speaker Boehner
Re: “[T]hat the Laws Be Faithfully Executed…”
Date: June 25, 2014
For years Americans have watched with concern as President Barack Obama has declined to faithfully execute the laws of our country – ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others, and at times, creating laws of his own.
Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president, as head of the Executive Branch of our government, “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” even if the president does not agree with the purpose of that law. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers principle, only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate.
On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce – at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him. On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day.
Presidents have traditionally been granted a degree of latitude with respect to the enforcement of the law, and tension between the branches of our government is hardly new. But at various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained.
President Obama’s aggressive unilateralism has significant implications for our system of government, and presents a clear challenge to our institution and its ability to effectively represent the people.
If the current president can selectively enforce, change or create laws as he chooses with impunity, without the involvement of the Legislative Branch, his successors will be able to do the same. This shifts the balance of power decisively and dangerously in favor of the presidency, giving the president king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.
It also has consequences for our economy and its ability to grow and create jobs. It’s
bad enough when Washington politicians force laws upon the people that make it difficult for private-sector employers to meet payrolls, invest in new initiatives and create jobs. It’s even worse when those same laws are arbitrarily enforced on the whims of the individual entrusted with the responsibility of carrying them out, adding uncertainty for private-sector job creators and families on top of the challenges they already face week-to-week.
Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I’m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a president, Americans note; we didn’t elect a monarch or king.
Every Member of the People’s House took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is only through strong action by the House in response to provocative executive action by the Executive Branch in the past that the separation of powers intended by the Framers has been preserved. For the integrity of our laws and the sake of our country’s future, the House must act now.
I intend to bring to the floor in July legislation that would authorize the House of Representatives – through the House General Counsel and at the direction of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) – to file suit in the coming weeks in an effort to compel the president to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country. The legislation would follow regular order and be considered by the Rules Committee following its introduction, prior to its consideration by the full House.
Under our system of government, the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which:
There is no one else who can challenge the president’s failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws;
There is no legislative remedy; and
There is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president’s failure.
I believe the House must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles at stake and to protect our system of government and our economy from continued executive abuse. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our country. When this legislation is introduced in the coming weeks, I ask that you review it and join me in supporting it when it goes before the House.
The Internal Revenue Service isn’t the only government agency dealing with missing emails or faulty hard drives.
Give him hell, #RowdyGowdy! @
Q:Here's a scary notion. The Washington Term Limits
Not scary. Needed.