Banned on FB so I thought I’d share it here

I Despise censorship! Don’t You? Especially when it’s something that’s truthful, and not vulgar. Even though this is vulgar, it needs our attention.   I changed the picture’s name, which is what was blocked.


 

ISIS Sells Yazidi Sex Slaves Far and Wide

Thu, March 3, 2016Slave

Illustrative picture. (Photo: Screenshot from video).

The Islamic State has been selling Yazidi girls captured in Iraq as far away as Afghanistan, Chechnya and Pakistan, according to the mayor of the Iraqi town of Shingal.

He found the information by speaking to freed Yazidi women and girls whose families had paid the substantial ransoms to the Islamic State through mediators.

“At this moment we do not know how these girls were moved outside of Iraq or Syria but we believe they could have smuggled them out of the countries overland,” Shingal Mayor Mihemma Xelil told the Kurdish news agency Rudaw.

Of the 6,255 Yazidis kidnapped by the Islamic State, 3,878 are believed to still be in captivity, according to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).

“We have paid the ransom for many of the rescued victims, especially in cases where we knew for sure that they would be released for ransom” Hussein Koro of the KRG told Rudaw.

Watch exclusive testimony from former Yazidi sex slaves: (Watch the video at Clarion Project)

Read the full story and watch the video at : The Clarion Project

Source : The Clarion Project

 

The Income Tax is Immoral and Unconstitutional – and Not (Just) for the Reason You Think

irs

Before you read the story I want to point out that Ted Cruz has promised to abolish the IRS and get America on a much more sensible Flat tax system.


taxes

Guest Post by Robin Koerner

I have just paid my biggest bill of the year. The invoice was for a cool 9% of my entire annual income – or my “Adjusted Gross Income” (AGI) as it appears on my tax returns, which have just been filed. And that invoice was from my accountant who just filed them for me.

I have a pretty modest income – so modest, in fact, that my AGI is of the order of a half of the median household income across the United States – the kind of income that triggers significant subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Even the “top line” of my income falls short of that median: so it’s not as if I’m earning loads and deducting huge amounts.

My financial life last year was pretty simple: my earnings derived from a modest real estate portfolio and some freelance/consulting work. My income is earned through my small business, which, for those who know about these things, is an S-corporation. I have no employees. I do no payroll.

Yet, I have just paid my accountant more than a month’s worth of income to complete my tax returns.

How many pages of tax returns do you think that I, a single individual, and my S-corporation (a small business) had to file, bearing in mind the small amount of income in question?

Frankly, there’s no good reason the answer is not one or two. But you already know the answer is more than that, don’t you?

Ten? Try again.

Twenty? Keep going.

Surely not 50?

You’re still not close.

Did I hear you say 100 – you’re going for three digits now? Wow.

Still not there.

The answer, my fellow American tax victims, is 149.

Just take a moment to absorb that. A sub median-earning American taxpayer, engaged in simple business activities, has a 149 page tax return. And if he doesn’t get it right, his error is punishable. Of that 149, about 100 go to the Feds.Business Woman Climbing a Pile of Files

Completing 149 pages of tax forms/schedules/supporting statements is a lot of work. And I know exactly how much it is, because of that big invoice from the accountant that I already mentioned.

It’s $2000 of work – my aforementioned largest bill of the year. And it’s $2000 of work I in no way could have done myself.

I’m no high school drop-out. I have a first class degree in physics from one of the best universities in the world. I like numbers. I like logic. I like intellectual rigor. I even have a nerdy love of spreadsheets (which tells me, for example, exactly how much I spent on groceries this month five years ago ($173.41, as it happens. I’m low-maintenance)).

But I could not reverse engineer those 149 pages of tax returns if my life depended on it. And I would defy anyone without a CPA qualification to be able to do so.

I have no complaint about my accountant, who provided very good service this year, but even he couldn’t get it right first time. As I type this article, I am awaiting “corrected” state returns (which are no shorter).

Moreover, as any small businessman knows, my accountant can only generate those 149 pages of returns after I have compiled all the necessary numbers and data in neat spreadsheets, nicely itemized and comprehensively annotated (two or three days’ work, right there, perhaps?). I know for sure that most tax payers are not as proficient with Excel as I am – so my accountants have an easy time of it with me. (He even told me so.)

Here’s the reality of the American tax system for modestly earning individuals who run small businesses:

My government has put me in a position where I must either pay 9% of my income to a professional just to enable me to avoid punishment, asset garnishment and even imprisonment. Supposedly, I can “do my own taxes”, but that is a joke. No one who has not gone to school for it could accurately complete those 149 pages with any honest degree of confidence – and I don’t care what software he’s using. Moreover, even if it were do-able, the time taken lots of benjaminsto learn how to do it and then do it properly would be measured in weeks, not hours. And we don’t get to invoice the IRS for our time.

Look in wonder, America, at the most regressive aspect of any taxation system in the world – its utter complexity to the point of Kafkaesque absurdity. And if you think it must be like that, literally a few days ago, the British chancellor announced the abolition of the annual tax return in the United Kingdom.

Can anyone, conservative or progressive, justify the need for self-employed individual to spend 9 percent of his income just to remain a free citizen in good standing or, should he not have the money to spare, to go to school to navigate his way through whichever of the 74,000 pages of the tax code apply to him?

If the tax code were sufficiently sensible that I could do my own taxes (which, as someone who likes money, spreadsheets and math, I’d be very happy to do), I could have paid the Feds double my actual tax bill – and still have been a thousand dollars better off on the money I’d have saved on tax preparation. Relative to the current situation, both I and the country would have been significantly better off.

It is established Constitutional Law (by Supreme Court precedent), basic morality and simple common sense that the government may not place an undue burden on a fundamental right – such as the right to stay out of prison even if one doesn’t have an accounting degree and the right not be forced to expend one’s property on anything other than actual taxes owed.

To quantify the absurdity, here’s a comparison I’ve never seen made before.

In the course of a year, my assets and non-business activities generate nine times as much tax (in the form chiefly of property taxes and sales taxes), as my end-of-year check to the IRS. The cost to me of compliance on that first nine-tenths of my tax burden is zero, while the cost to me of compliance with the other one tenth is about double the amount I actually owe.

You really can’t make it up.

Let me offer these thoughts, then, not as an article, but as an open letter to our government, the IRS and any Constitutional attorneys out there.

To the government, I am notifying you of the undue burden that you are placing on law-abiding citizens whose income, it happens, is deemed by recent legislation to be sufficiently modest that it wishes to subsidize my healthcare: the cost of this undue burden more than cancels out all such subsidies.

To the IRS, I ask this question. What will you do if I save my $2000 in preparation fees, pay you 50% more than I did this year, and I don’t complete those forms? A bonus to me of doing this would be that I don’t have to lie any more. Because we all know that you are forcing me to lie when I sign that paper saying “I declare that I have examined a copy of my electronic individual income tax return and accompanying schedules and statements for the tax year ending December 31, 2014, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete.”

end irs2… The real truth is that, “to the best of my knowledge and belief”, no person who is not trained, certified and engaged in daily work in the business of tax preparation, could possibly expect that he could generate a correct 149 pages of this stuff – regardless of how well he tried. And, moreover, the fact that he cannot is exactly why he can’t be expected to vouch for the work of the accountants whom he’d not have to hire if he did understand what on earth was going on in the first place.

Finally, and most importantly – to any Constitutional attorney: I can’t pay you (see above), but I have a tax return that will make your eyes bleed. Get me in front of a jury or, better yet, the Supreme Court, and let us ask 12 or nine reasonable people if the burden of completing this particular tax return – a requirement I must meet to retain my liberty and my property – is reasonable or not. And if just one of the jury or bench believes that a reasonably educated person could accurately complete my tax return in a reasonable period, I’ll be happily defeated – as long as he shows me how.

Otherwise, use me as a legal guinea pig to pull down this entire rotten structure that turns good people into unwilling law breakers or liars of both, reserving its very worst for those of us on modest means who wish to rise in the spirit of the American Dream, which our government and its agents seem all too willing to crush.

Our tax code is so complex that people our government deems too poor to buy their own health insurance must fork over nearly a tenth of their income just to comply with it. I cannot be the only one.
If I could reasonably compute my own tax – and it’s a matter of common law, surely, that a typical citizen must reasonably be able to meet all impositions of the state by his own means – I’d willingly pay double my current income tax because of all the money I’d save on compliance: I’d save enough to visit my family in England twice in a year; I’d save almost my entire year’s grocery bill; I’d save the cost of the roof over my head for two months.

I can afford my tax bill. I just cannot afford to calculate it. And as you can see from my short list, the complexity of this calculation has a very real impact on my life.

This complexity of our Federal tax system is crushingly regressive; it is impoverishing, and it is morally indefensible.

Simplifying the tax code would be simply the most immediately effective, progressive and moral low-hanging fruit Congress could pick. More importantly, the Constitutional requirement of not attaching undue burdens to our fundamental rights – whose protection, according to our Declaration of Independence, is the very justification of the existence of the state – legally and morally demands it.

 

robinwsRobin Koerner is a political and economic commentator for the Huffington Post, Ben Swann, the Daily Paul, and other sites. He is best known for coining the term “Blue Republican” to refer to liberals and independents who joined the GOP to support Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency in 2012. His article launched the biggest coalition for Ron Paul and a movement that outlived his candidacy, which now focuses on winning supporters for liberty (rather than just arguments), by finding common ground among Americans of various political persuasions. He is also the founder of WatchingAmerica.com, where 300 volunteers translate opinion about the US from all over the world.

Source : KrisAnneHall.com


I want to urge everyone to vote for Ted Cruz in the Primary and for President. He is the only non-establishment Republican in the race. He has the Constitution memorized, he also stands strong for religious freedom, the 2nd amendment, and abolishing the IRS.

Donald Trump is running as a Republican, when all available evidence says he is a liberal. Don’t let America fall under the control of another liberal America!

Vote Ted Cruz!!!

 

 

Voting Trump amounts to voting for “Hillary by Proxy” | CFP has lost me

 

11903759_947353878661624_3313527740210820127_nI agree with everything Trump SAYS about immigration and Islam and putting political correctness on hold etc…. The problem I have with the man is this : He’s a lifelong ‪#‎Democrat‬ who just decided to turn ‪#‎Republican‬ since Obama was elected. Trump voted for Obama, he’ll tell you himself that he was “Obama’s biggest cheerleader”. He’s good friends with Bill and ‪#‎Hillary‬ ‪#‎Clinton‬. He’s one of the largest contributors to the corrupt Clinton Foundation. He has no problem morally with using eminent domain to steal a little old ladies lifetime home to build a parking lot for a casino. The bottom line is that Trump is a spoiler candidate supported by BOTH ‪#‎Democrats‬ AND ‪#‎Establishment‬ Republicans, the people we are trying to rid ourselves of!!! A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for ‪#‎HillaryByProxy‬ !!! WHY would you vote for ANYONE but Ted Cruz??? The one candidate FEARED by Democrats and establishment Republicans!!! Trump is CHEERED by Democrats and establishment Republicans (Even Jimmy Carter) And Ted Cruz is FEARED by these same groups!!! A vote for Trump is a vote for more of the same…..SOS different day. Use your head for more than a hat rack and VOTE TED CRUZ!!!

I don’t think CFP is going to post my comment on their story, so I’m posting it here also. At one time I was a big fan of Canada Free Press, but the blind following of Trump has led me away from their posts.

USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE!!! The man is a life long #Democrat who says things you want to hear.

But he is supported by EVERYONE we want to throw out of government!!! Does that not tell you something???

Ted Cruz is the guy FEARED by the ‪#‎WashingtonCartel‬!!! #Democrats and ‪#‎Republicans‬ who have been stealing you blind for 30 or 40 years ALL FEAR ‪#‎CRUZ‬!!! But they SUPPORT ‪#‎TRUMP‬!!!

DID YOU HEAR ME??? They support ‪#‎DonaldTrump‬!!! Vote ‪#‎TedCruz‬!!!

Wake up America!!! ‪#‎CruzCrew‬‪#‎CruzCountry‬‪#‎CruzControl‬‪#‎CruzUSA‬‪#‎CruzToVictory‬‪#‎CruzMissile‬‪#‎Cruz2016‬

11234046_930681340328878_8314496133532781122_n

This is the story that set me off, found on Canada Free Press which historically has been one of my favorites, but they lost me when they went Trump. Have you ever heard the saying “A Zebra don’t change it’s stripes”??? Well folks the Trumpra has been a Democrat most of his life, and even voted for Obama!!! Do you know why the saying about the zebra and it’s stripes is so popular??? BECAUSE IT’S TRUE!!! THEY DON’T CHANGE!!!

Here is the story (And ones like it) responsible for my ending my subscription to Canada Free Press

Why a Rock-Ribbed Conservative Like Me Supports Donald Trump 100% 

A zebra (or Trumpra) just don’t change their stripes. The man was Obama’s BIGGEST CHEERLEADER and EVERY CAREER POLITICIAN BACKS HIM!!! The Democrats back him, the establishment backs him, Jimmy Carter even backs him!!!

Use the sense God gave you, and stop being manipulated by the press (Who ALSO promoted Trump from day 1)    and vote for Ted Cruz!!!

trump_infog_v2_3

 

 

 

Obama Profits from his anti-gun Agenda

Just like he and his friends profit from his “green agenda”

 

165084_316448845126823_556150433_n-600x450

America at War 02/08/2016

I have always known there was a “method to the madness”. You know that when Democrats press their “green agenda” down your throat it is because their friends have businesses that profit from it. They have always portrayed big business as the thieves, when in reality big business makes it’s money the old fashioned way, it Earns it!!!

By creating or managing products or sales and marketing of products or services, hiring of employees to help them in that endeavor. Big business is nothing more than a successful group of entrepreneurs who are good for the economy because they Hire people and spend money.

What about those people who continuously badmouth big business, what do they do for the economy??? Who have they given a job to lately??? Let there be no mistake, opponents of big business are generally collecting salaries from an anti-American, anti big business Billionaire like George Soros.

Why does he finance these things you ask??? Because he makes his money by destroying economies. He makes money by destroying the worth of a country’s currency. So he hires agents to help him do that. Hurt existing companies, while pushing regulations helping “green” companies owned by him and his friends, promising big pay days to politicians who help him.

Obama gave Solyndra and many other “green energy” companies millions and millions of American tax dollars. Just afterwards those companies put our money in their pockets, and closed the doors. Profiting from failure. All of this was planned from day one.

They achieved their objective. Thinking their agenda and yours is the same is where you are mistaken. Go back and look at how much taxpayer money was lost by Obama and his “green energy” friends.

Here is another example of the Obama business model. He gets on television and promotes his anti-gun agenda in front of the world, while in the background he’s invested in firearm and ammo companies. You see he creates a situation causing the sales and price of firearms to soar, while betting on the gun company. Check out the full story from The New American. And subscribe for more great 2nd Amendment stuff !!!

The New American :

Sunday, 07 February 2016

Obama Owns Stock in Gun and Ammo Manufacturers, Profiting From His Policies

Written by 

While with his infamous “pen and … phone” President Barack Obama has acted to limit the availability of guns and ammunition; with his investments he profits from the purchase of both these objects which have “taken a heartbreaking toll on too many communities across the country.

A special report published by Reuters on February 5 reveals that President Obama owns stock in a couple of manufacturers of guns and ammunition.

From Reuters:

From his days in the Illinois General Assembly, President Obama has up to $100,000 invested in a nearly $16 billion state pension plan, which has about $5 million invested directly in several gun and ammo makers. The retirement plan, which covers state employees, judges and the general assembly, also holds shares in a small-cap mutual fund with a $9.5 million stake in Smith & Wesson.

While this is admittedly a minuscule amount of money for one a man of the president’s net worth ($7 million as of 2014), the inconsistency between his advocacy of tighter gun controls and his increase in personal prosperity from the increased demand for weapons and ammunition is noteworthy.

As The New American has reported, President Obama has signed numerous executive orders (edicts masquerading as valid law) restricting the right of Americans to purchase, sell, trade, and own firearms and the ammunition that make them useful.

Such a seizure of power is inarguably tyrannical. While there may be millions who depend on the tyranny for their living and millions of others who support the tyrant’s usurpation as something good, there can be no doubt that for a president to issue fiats from the White House effectively repealing the Second Amendment is the act of a tyrant.

As with most of the notorious tyrants of history, President Obama draws near to the people with his lips, but his heart is set on lining his own pockets. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more evident than in the revelation of his ownership of stock in manufacturers of firearms and ammunition.

The effect on the bottom line of these companies since Barack Obama settled in the Oval Office is remarkable. Again, as reported by Reuters:

Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million from $30 million in the nation’s two largest gun manufacturers with publicly traded shares, Smith & Wesson Corp and Sturm, Ruger & Co. That means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans.

The influx has helped to boost both companies’ shares by more than 750 percent during the Obama presidency; each now has a market value of about $1 billion.

To many, this double dealing may seem inexplicable. When analyzed economically rather than morally, the problem is solved very easily.

According to principles of supply and demand, when the supply of a good decreases and the demand for that good simultaneously increases, the price ascends proportionally.

That is to say, President Obama’s attack on the gun and ammo industries serves not only to advance his agenda on the Constitution, but to manipulate the price of those two items in a way that favors his personal fortunes.

He can have his cake of decreasing public liberty while eating the cake of increasing personal wealth.

Later in the story of the seeming discrepancy between public policy and personal investment, Reuters painted a clear and condemning picture of the favorable economic developments in the firearm sector that followed Obama’s 2008 election:

By the end of 2015, more than 150 mutual funds owned Smith & Wesson shares, up from 53 at the end of 2008, and nearly 130 held stock in Ruger, up from 52, according to data from Morningstar Inc.

It would have taken investors “minimal due diligence” to see massive profit potential in Ruger stock when Obama was first elected, said Ruger Chief Executive Mike Fifer. Shares hit a low of $4.50 the Friday after that Tuesday election; the stock was changing hands today at $61.61.

“Orders at every level of the distribution channel exploded” the week of Obama’s election, Fifer recalled. “And continued to do so for months afterward.”

And, later in the article, the benefit to the president’s portfolio created by his drive to disarm civilians is reported:

“Let’s just say he’s been good for business,” Jack Lesher, manager of Chuck’s Firearms in Atlanta, said of Obama.

Gun sales jumped again recently after the president blasted congressional inaction on gun control and vowed to use executive powers to expand background checks for buyers and bolster licensing requirements for dealers. His announcement followed yet another mass shooting, on Dec. 2 in San Bernardino, California, where a couple pledging allegiance to Islamic State killed 14 people.

For the week that ended Dec. 20, firearms background checks – a proxy for guns sales – totaled 839,109, the second-highest week since 1998. Only the week after the Sandy Hook shootings was higher, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Vista’s main factories have churned out bullets 24 hours, seven days a week for at least two years, Vista Chief Financial Officer Stephen Nolan told investors in November.

Now the industry is ready for an election-year surge.

“The politics of gun control could stay in the headlines, which we believe could lead to a record year,” wrote Chris Krueger, senior research analyst at Lake Street Capital Markets, in a note to investors in January.

Ruger is boosting inventories to prepare, after learning a costly lesson going into the last presidential election. Demand peaked that year, based on the number of FBI background checks sought for new gun purchases. The surge followed Obama’s re-election and the Sandy Hook shooting.

“When we went into late 2011, we got cleaned out of inventory … even though we increased production dramatically,” company CEO Fifer told investors during a November conference call.

Regardless, there will be those who will defend the president’s profiting from the companies whose wares have contributed to the crisis of public safety in which “more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence.”

These advocates will point out that the president’s percent of ownership in these industries is indirect and insignificant. Both of those adjectives are apt, but they do not accurately describe the bigger picture.

“Obama and his tiny stake are typical of most Americans with holdings in firearms investments: They are invested in funds that buy shares of the relatively small part of the firearms industry that is publicly traded. But collectively, their investments are a boon to the gun industry and amount to a sizable stake in major gun and ammo makers,” Tim McLaughlin and Peter Eisler write in the Reuters story.

Not surprisingly, Reuters notes that “The White House declined to comment on Obama’s holdings in the Illinois General Assembly’s pension plan, which he earned while serving in that state’s senate.”

 

Source :

The New American

More Racist Politics from the Obama Gang

From The New American newsletter
Wednesday, 03 February 2016

New Obama Regulations Will Make It Harder to Hire and Promote White Men

Written by 

The Obama administration is obsessed with race and sex. Many know about the administration’s scheme to collect information on the racial composition of American communities in an effort to force neighborhoods to “diversify.” Now the government is applying the same philosophy to businesses in order to “equalize” wages. It’s an effort, critics point out, that will make it harder for white men to find jobs. Writes the New York Post’s Betsy McCaughey:

Claiming women aren’t getting paid enough, President Obama wants to make it easier to accuse employers of gender discrimination and hit them with class-action lawsuits. A new regulation proposed on Friday will require all employers with 100 or more workers to report how much their workforce is paid, broken down by race and [sex].

The rule, slated to go into effect in September 2017, will cause headaches for employers and anyone — man or woman — who works hard and expects to get ahead based on merit. The winners are federal bean counters, class-action lawyers and the Democratic Party, which is playing up the [inter-sex] “wage gap” as usual during this election year.

McCaughey points out that this regulation will hit white men the hardest, and this is echoed by American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson:

Your employer will have to lump workers into 12 salary bands. If you’re a white male up for a raise, but the band above yours already includes too many while males, tough luck. Your boss will be pressured to give the raise to a woman or minority to avoid triggering EEOC scrutiny.

This data collection is a godsend for EEOC regulators looking for targets, and it hands class-action lawyers the statistics they need on a silver platter.

Even worse: the presumption is that the employer discriminates, unless proven otherwise.

The “guilty until proven innocent” standard Lifson refers to seems to reflect “disparate impact” theory; this principle states that if a group cannot measure up to a standard as well as another group, that standard is by definition considered unjustly discriminatory. Applied by the government for decades, it has been used to compel police departments and other entities to scrap qualification exams because women and minorities underperformed on them. As an example, the Obama administration sued the Pennsylvania State Police in 2014 for treating women equally — because doing so yielded unequal outcomes.

As for different salary outcomes in business, McCaughey explains the consequences of the new regulations:

Employers will have to change their policies to avoid these differences — for example, not preferring the job applicant who has a college degree over the applicant who doesn’t, unless the job can be shown to require college skills. The burden is on employers. It’s assumed they’re discriminating, in other words, and they have to prove they’re not.

Jenny Yang, chairwoman of Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, defends the massive fishing expedition, saying, “pay discrimination goes undetected because of a lack of accurate information about what people are paid.”

Of course, it’s impossible not to discover pay “discrimination.” All that term refers to is the process of choosing one or some from between/among two or many. And since meritocracy dictates we discriminate between the intelligent and the stupid, the educated and the ignorant, and the qualified and the unqualified — and since groups have different proclivities and interests — it follows that Yang cannot fail in her mission. But she clearly isn’t interested in the real question: Are inter-group pay gaps actually caused by prejudice?

Demagogues love the slogan “Women make only 79 cents on a man’s dollar!” Yet the same data-collection entities reporting that fact also tell us why — and it has nothing to do with unfair discrimination. I explained this in the 2014 New American piece “Equal Pay for Equal Work: Means Paying Men More,” but female commentators such as Carrie Lukas have made the same points. Here are some of the main factors influencing the inter-sex pay gap:

Men tend to choose more lucrative fields than women do (e.g., the hard sciences as opposed to the soft ones).

Related to the above, women avoid the most dangerous and dirtiest jobs — such as iron-working and commercial fishing — which often bring great compensation.

Full-time men work more hours on average than “full-time” women.

When climbing the corporate ladder, women are six times more likely than men to change positions and career tracks; consequently, men generally have more seniority and experience.

Women are more likely to decline promotions and “tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours in the office than men do,” as Lukas wrote in 2007.

The reality is that women don’t get less money for equal work — they get less money for lesser work. Moreover, it seems that some pay gaps are more equal than others. There was much talk late last year about Hollywood actresses making less than actors (poor Jennifer Lawrence had to settle for $52 million, $28 million less than Robert Downey Jr.). Yet no one troubles over the top 10 female fashion models earning more than 10 times as much as their male counterparts do. And even among rank-and-file models, the women make 148 percent more.

But isn’t this “sex discrimination”? Aren’t the models doing equal work? This question gets at a generally ignored but central issue: What constitutes equal work, anyway?

Models don’t get paid because they’re capable of posing, wearing clothing, standing under hot lights or parading down runways; I could do that. They earn wages because their “work” helps satisfy a market — and the female models command more because their “work” satisfies a bigger market than the men’s work does. This is the same reason NBA players make more than WNBA players and heavyweight boxers generally out-earn lightweights. The “work” isn’t just shooting baskets and throwing punches; it involves succeeding in, respectively, the NBA and heavyweight ranks.

This brings us to another significant point: Is it really true that sex and racial discrimination is always unjust? Consider that a quality integral to doing the women models’ work is being female. If the male models were women, they might be able to do the same “work” and satisfy the market equally. There are many other such examples. As I wrote in 2014:

My local hardware store provides knowledgeable workers, all men, who render valuable advice on products and how to perform various home repairs. If it was determined that people found a female in that role less credible and were then not quite as likely to buy from the establishment, would even a highly competent woman be able to do “equal work” in that capacity?

What about the little West Indian restaurant, with all-black workers, I loved when I spent a few weeks in Tampa? If hiring a white person made the eatery seem less authentic and negatively affected its appeal, would that individual be able to do “equal work”? The same, of course, could be asked about a black person working in a German restaurant. In these cases race would be integral to the “work.”

The reality is that the government has no idea what constitutes “equal work,” yet it feels qualified to mandate equal pay. But while one might not expect bureaucrats to have pondered deeper issues such as the above, simple facts can be easily apprehended. And here’s one: Women in the Obama White House make only 84 cents on every male staffer’s dollar. Is this driven by bad intentions? If not, a desire to ascribe such motives to a wider society exhibiting the same phenomenon just might be driven by bad intentions itself.

Source : The New American

Indoctrinating America’s Children

Obama speaks from a Mosque, his Administration refuses to utter the words “radical Islam”, while schools across America force children to recite the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

America at War  02/04/2016

obama-mosque-visit-640

All of this while children are no longer reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it simply mentions God.

I do not support the term “radical Islam” myself. Because it implies Islam itself is not radical. If you read the Q’uran you’ll find that what ISIS practices is Islam. Right out of the pages of their Holy book. A “radical” is nothing more than a devout Muslim. And to tell you the truth, if anyone hashijacked” the religion it is those who DO NOT support the violence. That may make Barry boil over with frustration, but the facts don’t lie.

Islam has been a source of violence and oppression for over 1400 years. Islamic invaders have destroyed priceless artifacts, temples, and writings of other religions for that entire 1400 year time span. Don’t take my word for it, do some research. Even people that think they are educated in the subject of Islam will be surprised at the sheer volume of destruction through the centuries.

Our children are not hearing about that though. They are being taught the “Unicorn milk and Rainbows” version of Islam. For years and years now Liberals have been trying to remove the mention of Jesus Christ or God from schools. But in the last couple of years they have decided it’s absolutely necessary to teach kids about Allah. This is the most wide scale manipulation of young minds I’ve ever seen.

The government is literally fabricating history and  facts and selling it to the next generation as The Religion of Peace. They tossed God from the school house, and in their very next motion welcomed Allah with open arms.

I learned something about America that went in the face of everything that I thought I knew. I always thought that if an American President ever lied to the citizens of this country that they’d be drummed out of office, like Nixon. I always thought if the government ever tried to oust God and replace Him with Allah that they’d all lose their jobs and be run out of town.

I always thought that if the media ever started fabricating and weaving stories instead of reporting the actual news that American citizens would, and could force their networks out of business. Normal Americans have become impotent. Unable to stop the onslaught of insanity.

America has spiraled out of control further than I ever imagined it could! We have been on auto pilot for too long, and they have caught us sleeping. Even if we make a course correction now, how long can we maintain it with generations of Americans being taught lies in school? I’m not just referencing this subject either. Everything from common core to the liberal philosophies being taught to our children in schools today.

The kids of today are not learning the same “History” lessons that we learned. History did not change, but those writing it did. Your children do not know the same history as you were taught. They have “history version 2.0 beta” which is an alter reality version pushing an agenda, a Liberal Muslim agenda.

Here is a story I was reading today.

From The Clarion Project

Lawsuit Filed Against Maryland HS for Islamic Indoctrination

Mon, February 1, 2016

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of parents of a Maryland teenager who say their daughter was forced to profess and write out the Shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith, which reads: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.”

Recitation of the statement is sufficient to convert a non-Muslim to Islam. In addition, the latter half of the statement  signifies the person has accepted Mohammed as their prophet.

According to lawsuit, the teenager, a student at La Plata High School in La Plata, Maryland, was also required to memorize and recite the Five Pillars of Islam. The Thomas More Law Center, attorneys for the case, charges that Charles County Public Schools disparaged Christianity by teaching its students that: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

The high school also taught:

  • “Islam, at heart, is a peaceful”
  • “To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”
  • The Koran states, “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and
  • “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

You can read the course material by clicking here.

The teenager’s father, John Kevin Wood, a former Marine and a veteran of the Iraq War, became concerned when he saw that his daughter and other students were taught extensively about Islam and required to list the benefits of the religion but were not taught about Islam in the context of current events.

One homework assignment, obtained by a news outlet asked questions including, “How did Muslim conquerors treat those they conquered?” The correct answer was, “With tolerance, kindness and respect.”

Students were not allowed to opt out of the curriculum.

The lawsuit contends the school is violating his daughter’s “constitutional rights.”

Source : The Clarion Project

The Federal government has evolved from protecting basic freedoms to being a parasite. When it sees something as big and powerful as the internet, the feds naturally wants to get their hands on it, not just to control it but maybe even more impo…

The Federal government has evolved from protecting basic freedoms to being a parasite. When it sees something as big and powerful as the internet, the feds naturally wants to get their hands on it, not just to control it but maybe even more impo….