First, the video:
And then, the link, here.
Rentoon, rentoon, rentoon, bullshit bullshit bullshit, blah blah blah.
Carney then mocked Henry, saying “feel free to convey to your viewers and readers that the sequester doesn’t matter.”
It still amazes me that Mr Carney can continue to so religiously fellate in such an advanced fashion into the Obama regime’s second term.
Frankly, at this late date, Carney sounds a bit like Baghdad Bob.
Baghdad Bob by US_Marine_Hoorah
BZ
From the DailyCaller.com:
A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.
When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is “the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide.”
It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn’t have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.
It doesn’t take much more than a fourth grader — yes, even a public school-educated fourth grader — to realize that this is a brain-glazingly idiotic idea.
It’s as idiotic as the rest of the gun-grabbing laws that affect only law abiding citizens. Actual citizens, actual taxpayers, will be the sole individuals hurt by this and similar laws. For one very obvious reason:
The vast, vast bulk of gun crime is committed by purposeful criminals, who have records, who have likely been in jail or prison any number of times, who have violated parole any number of times as well.
Because they are criminals. It’s what they do. It’s in their genes, it’s outlined in their job description. I know. I’ve dealt with criminals for 42 years. I know them, I sense them, I can smell them, see them, recognize them from afar.
Here’s what’s coming: your homeowners’ insurance will require a separate policy for every firearm owned. Extra money. And an accounting. To the insurance agency and then from them to the government because the government will want the information and the statistics. Then your ammunition will be limited and riders will be required as well, mandating the same things again: more cash, more regulations, more reports to your agent and thusly to the federal government.
This law and laws like it don’t hurt criminals and it won’t curb so-called “gun crime.” The mentally deranged are already out there, and many of them are already criminals because the “system” knows not how to deal with the insane and the mentally misadjusted. Those persons — at least in Fornicalia — get dumped into the criminal justice system and then spend time incarcerated in jails and prisons. They have criminal and/or violent tendencies and they commit crimes.
Therefore, only the law-abiding are penalized. Criminals couldn’t care less, and the mentally deranged lack the capacity to want to care at all.
Power and control. It’s about power and control and ideology. Leftism. Socialism.
Because, once completely disarmed, the government can do, literally, anything it wants at any time for any reason with its “citizens” who, by that point, are nothing more than Serfs and Proles and Groundlings.
Check your history.
BZ
And here’s the BIG difference: more guns in the hands of LAWFUL American citizen taxpayers — not criminals. But the Obaka Administration adamantly refuses to make that distinction, placing American gun owners into the SAME category as common criminals.
From EAGNews.org:
By Kyle Olson
EAGnews.org
NEW YORK – Why is our government education system so dysfunctional? Perhaps because parents often don’t get the truth and administrators and teachers are constantly fighting each other.
That much can be discerned from the words of Karen Lewis, president of the radical Chicago Teachers Union.
Lewis appeared before the New York Collective of Radical Educators (an appropriate audience, to be sure) March 16 to give the keynote address at the group’s annual conference.
Lewis reminisced about her teaching days, when she would lie to parents when it came time to discuss their child’s performance. She then said – because of her lies – the student became her “hostage” who would do what she wanted.
The YouTube video here and below:
That said, need I make any further comments? Because, after all, I reference my links to Karen Lewis here.
Quite. I suspected not.
BZ
And with that in mind, I direct you to the bulk of the comments in the article:
If she wins it will prevent other employers from hiring deaf employees, the cost of hiring an interpreter would be too great. It isn’t a perfect world.
whether she wins or not, it will likely have the same effect. Employers just won’t ever say WHY they aren’t hiring someone.
Sure, but we get to feeeeeeeeeeeeel good about ourselves as the engines of humanity shut down, one job at a time, under the crushing burden of government mandates.
Employer generously hires a disabled person, and gets screwed in return. This employee is arrogant and ungrateful.
In other words, ‘No Good Deed Goes Unpunished!!”
Completely agree.
…Specifically in California.
The leading socialist republic state of the Union. Watch it spin round and round as it goes down the toilet…
How it goes it in the land of liberal fools. Looneys running the asylum?
I hear she also suffers from Anal Glaucoma.
You know. When a person just can’t SEE getting their AXX out of bed to get to work?
Bets she has already applied for Federal Disability “Benefits”?
Damn Illuminati
who is john gault
Employers hire people for the skills that they possess. That is why so many of the deaf are in high paying jobs, they have desirable skills.
and if a deaf person has skills, good for them. the point is that employers are skittish of hiring members of litigious special interest groups if they can find qualified employees that don’t belong to a special interest group.
As they well should be (skittish); actions (such as a disabled person suing an employer for something as frivolous as this) have consequences. Just as ObamaCare’s imposing crushing financial burdens on employers has, quite predictably (except of course to morons like Obama and Pelosi) led to employers turning full time employees into part time employees.
This is far from “Frivolous” She cant hear, moron. She’s protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, just like our disabled vets are.
Up yours, a*hole!
Actually, it is frivolous; what is the sense of hiring a worker for let’s say $50,000 to do a job someone else can do for the same salary, if you must also hire a translator for $50,000? And a reasonable accomodation is to use notes or computers to communicate.
You must think businesses stay in business by losing money. Clearly a moron like you is and always will be an employee or a welfare recipient.
I see no evidence that the deaf have any higher level of skills than anyone else. Hear what I’m sayin’ ?
I have’nt heard anything that you can see to prove that able bodied people are better at anything…Stupid argument you got there. Deaf people, hell Handicapped people in general go out of there way to prove that not only are as good as able bodied individuals,If you are gonna have logical argument, then you have to start with logic. That dumba%% you apparently don’t have any of…
Lacking the ability to hear is in effect a lack of skill/capability and employers should be able to consider that in with all the other skills/capabilities.
And if they decide to hire a deaf person they should be required to make absolutely ZERO accommodation for that person, as that person should have been hired based on cost/benefit analysis. If the deaf person doesn’t like the lack of accommodation they can find a different job.
her greed will make it worse for all deaf people
Arrogance. Her employer generously gives her a job, and she thanks them by suing them for not hiring a SECOND employer to shadow her for “translation”. Unbelievable arrogance and conceit.
It is the same thing as demanding that an employer hire someone who doesn’t speak English and then demanding that the employer provide an interpreter so that the person can do their job. It’s insane.
Wow. Really? Being Deaf is a physical disability as opposed to a foreigner who just doesn’t speak the language. By law they are supposed to provide an interpreter under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Im glad she is suing. Hearing people clearly need to be educated. And note that she needs an interpreter only during meetings. Thats not too much to ask for. The employer could simply contact an interpreter through the internet through video conference. Its that simple.
Believe it or not but there are many jobs, even in the federal system, that are only open to the hearing impaired. It would be helpful knowing if Ms Kazerounian has a job that used her sign language skills. These meetings could not have lasted more than an hour and were surely not on a daily basis. I am appalled that an organization like this shirked their responsibility. This is the 21st Century and the hearing impaired are generally better educated than other groups, because they were given the services of interpreters in the education system! There are many children of the deaf who are in the workplace, why wasn’t at least one hearing staff member proficient in sign language?
seriously, you are NOT a libertarian. an organization does NOT necessarily have a responsbility to accomodate every problem of every employee.
LOL…I’m smelling a liberal rat!
Look how Liberterian spelled libertarian…..clearly its a false nomer.
Agreed.
And if she spoke Klingon….then why wasn’t at least one staff member proficient in Klingon???
Or, if she was incompetent, why wasn’t at least one staff member assigned to fix her messes?
Hey, this is a fun game!!!
Let’s just pretend that businesses don’t actually attached a VALUE (whether it’s a for profit business or not) to your WORK…..and, when the cost of employing YOU exceeds that VALUE…..then it is not reasonable to expect them to keep you employed…..because at that point, you are no longer an employee….you are an EXPENSE…and you are doing work that is no longer of VALUE.
But, why let economic realities interfere with everyone’s ‘right’ to have a job?….or at least, to get paid for showing up somewhere at a specified time, eh?
And so it goes. Do I detect a bit of a “wave of change” occurring?
Just saying.
BZ
I’m sure everyone recalls Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — Big Sis — saying that the border is secure, and that border security is better than ever. A rather declarative sentence, really.
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall
As the immigration reform Gang of Eight inside the Beltway prepares to announce a deal later this week, claiming border security will come before a path to citizenship for millions of illegals, Border Patrol agents have seen illegal border crossings double and warn the cutting of agent work hours will only result in less border security, not more.
“We’ve seen the number of illegal aliens double, maybe even triple since amnesty talk started happening,” an agent told Townhall, who asked to remain unnamed due to fears of retaliation within Customs and Border Protection [CBP], something he said is common. “A lot of these people, although not the majority, are criminals or aggravated felons. This is a direct danger to our communities.”
Imagine that! You even begin to speak about amnesty and crossings double! Who would ever have thought that the remotest of possibilities?
In response she now says:
Janet Napolitano: We shouldn’t wait until the border is secure to legalize illegals
posted at 10:41 am on March 27, 2013 by Allahpundit
No worries. She says the border’s already “as secure as it’s ever been,” even though her department has given up trying to measure that. Marco Rubio recently claimed that 10 million new illegals would cross the border over the next decade if there’s no new guest-worker program in place. Maybe Napolitano could quantify border control that way. Are things secure enough now to ensure that only nine million of them would make it? Eight million?
“I think that once people really look at the whole system and how it works, relying on one thing as a so-called ‘trigger’ is not the way to go,” she said at a Christian Science Monitor event. “There needs to be some kind of certainty in the bill so that people can know when they can legalize and then when the pathway to citizenship, earned citizenship, will open up.”
Says she.
So, to Janet Napolitano: were you lying then, or are you lying now? Because you are lying to the American public.
BZ