Nov 24, 2015

This is The BEST Hillary 2016 Bumper Sticker of ALL TIME

 Russ Hepler reports that questions about Hillary Clinton’s physical and mental health have started to crop up.
From questions about the “coke bottle” glasses to Huma Abedin – Hillary’s trusted aid – emailing about Hillary’s confusion, the whispers are growing louder about the former First Lady’s fitness to assume the Oval Office should she win the election in 2016.
But, a most unbelievable statement Hillary recently made has some people wondering just how out of touch with reality Mrs. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton really is.

Breitbart reports:
Hillary Clinton focused on her real enemy – Americans who disagree with her – in a campaign speech on Thursday.
In a statement her own campaign Tweeted out as her marquee comment, Clinton declared: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
The UK Daily Mail describes Clinton as “reading her speech at a brisk clip from a teleprompter at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City,” but slowing down to mock Republicans over the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” which “Republicans often accuse President Barack Obama of purposefully avoiding.”
The Daily Mail cheekily notes that Clinton “referred repeatedly to ‘radical jihadism’ as a global scourge, but didn’t explain how the concept of jihadism is consistent with the notion that adherents of the world’s second largest religion are wholly uninvolved.”
Hillary’s statement – Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever – goes far beyond just political pandering.  It makes one wonder if something has snapped inside the mind of the former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
 Perhaps she has been living in a cocoon for the past 50 years and hasn’t read about the hundreds of radical Islamic terrorist attacks across the planet.  Here’s a list from Wikipedia:
Maybe she didn’t watch TV on 9/11 when radical Islamic terrorists committed the worst enemy attack on American soil ever.
Maybe she thinks its just a coincidence that all of these terrorists generally shout “Allahu Akbar!” just before all Hell breaks loose.
 It just boggles the mind that this is the BEST the Democrat Party has to offer the American people for 2016.
Breitbart goes on:
The rest of her remarks are summarized as follows:
Blaming ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ for vicious attacks of the sort that killed 129 people last Friday in Paris, she said, ‘isn’t just a distraction.’ Affiliating them with a religion ‘gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve.’
In the end, Clinton insisted, the Obama administration enjoyed some success by decoupling its strategy to defeat al-Qaeda from its religious underpinnings.
‘Our priority should be how to fight the enemy,’ she said. ‘In the end it didn’t matter what kind of terrorist we called [Osama] bin Laden. It mattered that we killed bin Laden.’
She also backed the president’s call for an America open to Syrian refugees, saying that the United States can’t ‘turn our backs on those in need.’

Clinton particularly warned against ‘discriminating against Muslims,’ saying that ‘many of these refugees are fleeing the same terrorists who threaten us.’
She did, however, call for ground troops to fight the 100 percent non-Islamic Islamic State, which is a significant departure from President Obama’s foreign policy… although she doesn’t want too many ground troops.
While Clinton was speaking, word came in that an American has been killed by Palestinian terrorists, who have absolutely nothing to do with Islam, in Israel.
To allow this woman back into the halls of power of the U.S. government would be to commit national suicide.
Seriously, her statements make one think she must be on the Iranians’ payroll.
Even George Orwell would be impressed by Hillary’s “Newspeak”!

Show These Charts To Anyone Who Thinks Minimum Wage Doesn’t Cost Jobs

Liberals forget all economic logic when it comes to the issue of the minimum wage.
Liberals tax pollution because they want less pollution. They tax cigarettes and alcohol so people use less cigarettes and alcohol. And the logic here is correct – when you make the price of something expensive, people buy less of it.
But labor is just yet another price – the price employers pay for labor. Its fantasy to think that increasing the cost of labor won’t reduce the demand for it. More specifically, since the minimum wage effects those at the bottom of the economic ladder, we should expect the minimum wage to reduce employment among the young and unskilled (but obviously not among those who already earn above the minimum wage).

But don’t take my word for it, let the charts to the talking. The first is provided by Antony Davies at the Mercatus Center:

The X axis depicts the minimum wage as a percentage of the average wage in the country, while the Y axis looks at the unemployment rate by education level.
As is expected, the higher the minimum wage, the higher the unemployment among those with only a high school education – though the effect is especially pronounced on those with no high school education, the most on those without a high school education under age 25.

The only group unaffected if college graduates – most of whom are earning more than the minimum wage already.
Here’s two more charts, both from Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute:

Some of the effects are masked.
Remember that if people give up working and leave the labor force they’re no longer counted as “unemployed.” And a higher minimum wage does make it harder for unskilled workers to find work, leading them to drop out of the labor force entirely.

Consider this chart looking at minimum wage hikes and youth labor force participation. The black dots indicate a  year when the minimum wage was raised:

If charts aren’t enough for you, rest assured, the belief that the minimum wage causes unemployment truly is the economic consensus. Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw reports that 79% of economists agree with the statement “A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers.”

People Who Got Owned Because They Forgot To Log Out Of Facebook (16 pics)

If you're going to stay logged into Facebook, you're going to pay the consequences.

THIS is How Much Obama’s 10,000 Syrian Refugees Will Cost Us

The estimated cost to resettle an average, single Middle Eastern refugee in the U.S. over the first five years is $64,370 — or 12 times the United Nations estimates it costs to support a refugee staying in a neighboring Middle Eastern country, according to an analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies.
With the Obama administration planning to admit thousands of refugees from Middle Eastern countries like Syria to the U.S., a new CIS report obtained by Breitbart compares the cost of resettlement in the U.S. with supporting the refugees abroad.

“Given limited funds, the high costs of resettling refugees in the United States means that providing for them in neighboring countries in the Middle East is more cost-effective, allowing us to help more people,” Steven Camarota, lead author of the report and director of research at CIS, said.
According to CIS, while the UN has sought $1,057 annually to support each Syrian refugee living in neighboring Middle Eastern countries it would cost the U.S. $64,370 per refugee in the first five years, or $257,481 per refugee household, to resettle them in the U.S.
The Center for Immigration Studies cites “heavy welfare use” as the main reason why refugees are so costly to resettle. As CIS notes, Middle Eastern refugees in the U.S. have traditionally required a lot of public assistance, with 91 percent on food stamps, 68 percent on cash assistance, and 62 percent on Medicaid, according to the most recent government data.

Several U.S. mayors have recently claimed refugees add to their tax base and promote economic growth, making for a more “culturally diverse” and “economically resilient” city.
The CIS study indicates they are more of a drain on the economy than a boost.
If the U.S. takes in 35,000 refugees next year from countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, which is a reasonable estimate for fiscal 2016, it would cost the U.S. taxpayer $2.3 billion just in the first five years, WND reports.
This does not include the cost of refugees from non-Middle Eastern nations, which will be another 50,000 refugees costing at least another $2.5 billion.

The Most Impressive National Geographic Pictures Of 2015 (40 pics)

People might read Playboy for the articles, but they read National Geographic for pictures like these ones.