Welcome to the Unaffordable Careless Act

Small businesses won't grow, and more employees will work fewer hours. That's just for starters.

Harvard (and later Columbia) sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote in 1936 about the "unanticipated consequences of purposive social action." Pity that Barack Obama, an alumnus of both universities, either never read or took to heart Merton's warnings. It would have saved Americans a lot of misery.

The president certainly did not promote the Affordable Care Act by promising it would mean more part-time and fewer full-time jobs. Yet that is one of its unanticipated consequences.

A major provision of ObamaCare requires companies to provide health insurance to any employee who works more than 30 hours a week or pay a $2,000 per-person fine. Not surprisingly, the number of hourly employees working 30-34 hours a week dropped by an average of 146,500 a month over the past year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number working 25-29 hours rose by 119,000 a month.

Consider individual workers such as single working mothers who need at least 35 hours waiting tables plus tips to make ends meet. If they are cut to under 30 hours, they will have to look for second jobs. If these moms can find a second job, they'll still have to juggle schedules, child care and transportation. Overall, even if 1% of the workforce is thus affected by this squeeze, that's nearly 1.4 million Americans.

Then there are younger workers, many of whom will start their careers by stringing together several part-time jobs, perhaps for years. Their predicament may delay when they start families, buy homes, pay off student loans and become independent.

The president's health law also unintentionally operates to prevent the smallest companies from growing. Owners have a strong incentive to stay below the law's 50-employee threshold at which they are required to provide health insurance.

Here the U.S. is following in the footsteps of France and other countries with sclerotic economies. Earlier this year, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a study of the French regulatory burden on businesses with more than 50 employees.

Via: Karl Rove

Continue Reading....

“Srsly”: “Twerk” and “Selfie” among new additions to Oxford English Dictionary

Need further proof that Miley Cyrus’ controversial MTV Video Music Awards performance will go down in the annals of history? Just check out the latest revision to the Oxford English Dictionary, which now includes the verb “twerking.”

According to Oxford Dictionaries’ Katherine Connor Martin, “twerking” isn’t a brand-new term by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it’s been around for more than twenty years.

“There are many theories about the origin of this word, and since it arose in oral use, we may never know the answer for sure,” Martin told Britain’s Daily Mail. “We think the most likely theory is that it is an alteration of work, because that word has a history of being used in similar ways, with dancers being encouraged to ‘work it.’ The ‘t’ could be a result of blending with another word such as twist or twitch.

Even actor Morgan Freeman seems to be excited about the new addition, performing a dramatic reading of the new officially-sanctioned word on HLN’s “Morning Express” Wednesday.

Cyrus’ infamous dance move wasn’t the only new addition inspired by popular culture, however. “Selfies,” “phablets” and “bitcoins” also made the cut. In June, Oxford added “e-Reader,” “flash mob” and “to have a cow” to its annals.

Listed below are 18 of the newest words in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Apols

pl. n. (informal): apologies

Babymoon

n. (informal): a relaxing or romantic holiday taken by parents-to-be before their baby is born; a period of time following the birth of a baby during which the new parents can focus on establishing a bond with their child.

Via: Red Alert Politics

Continue Reading....

OBAMA CROSSES RED LINE

By now it should be obvious that whenever the U.S. interferes in another nation’s politics in the name of “human rights,” that that is only a pretext. So it is in Syria, as Obama prepares to plunge America in a war with that nation, and, inevitably, its allies. The United States’ stated reason for intervention, as articulated by John Kerry, is that Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons on the rebels, many of whom are jihadis — including terrorists, rapists, and cannibals – and thus violated their human rights.

Kerry is certainly consistent. Earlier he worried about the “human rights” of Nigeria’s genocidal Islamic terrorists, Boko Haram, while ignoring their victims — thousands of slaughtered Christians and destroyed churches.

And this is the point: when the human rights of others, such as Christian minorities, are being grossly violated — specifically by the Islamists and jihadis that Obama has enabled and empowered, in Libya, Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere — then there is no U.S. talk of intervention. Indeed, there’s’ hardly any talk at all, sometimes not even perfunctory condemnation. Other times, the White House makes jokes about Muslim persecution of Christians, for example, concerning the recent spate of church attacks in Egypt.

It is therefore unsurprising that Obama is ignoring the fact that there is strong evidence, including from the victims themselves, that gas attacks in Syria are the work of al-Qaeda-linked terrorists. After all, who used chemical weapons on who is irrelevant to the U.S president. Based on pattern and precedent, what matters is apparently finding an excuse to support the jihadis.

In Egypt, for example, after millions of Egyptians, supported by their military, ousted the Muslim Brotherhood — which was violating the human rights of others, especially Christians – the U.S. government, far from simply leaving Egypt to work out its own internal problems, continues interfering, agitating, and threatening on behalf of the Brotherhood.

Thus while Obama claims that Assad crossed the “red line” by reportedly using chemical weapons, it’s well to remember that, in fact, it is Obama who continues crossing red lines, as the Egyptian military quite literally declared, when it recently sent the Pentagon a message saying that Obama’s consistent support for terrorists is “crossing the red line.”

Via: Human Events

Continue Reading....

CNN Reporter: Obama’s Claim U.S. Directly Threatened by Syrian Chemical Weapons ‘Very Dubious’

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama told PBS reporters that America could be threatened by Syrian chemical weapons in the event that the West does not intervene in that civil war. He said that, unchecked, Syrian chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands and be “directed at us.” A CNN reporter reacted to that news by saying it was “very dubious” that the United States could be directly threatened by Syrian chemical weapons. 

Obama told PBS reporters that the crisis in Syria represents a threat to American national security because Syrian chemical weapons could be directed at U.S. interests:

When you start talking about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, where over time, their control over chemical weapons may erode, where they’re allied to known terrorist organizations that, in the past, have targeted the United States, then there is a prospect, a possibility, in which chemical weapons that can have devastating effects could be directed at us.

RELATED: Obama on PBS Newshour: No Decision Yet on Syria, but If We Do Go In…

CNN anchor asked Suzanne Malveaux asked Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jill Dougherty if the president was referring to the United States itself or American interests abroad or allies like Israel. Dougherty agreed that Obama was probably not talking about the United States when he said “us.”

“National interests can be affected by what happens to the allies of the United States,” Dougherty said. “And it is very dubious that Syria could ever launch some type of chemical weapons directly against the United States.”

Watch the clip below via CNN:

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading....

10% Think Race Relations Better Since Obama Elected

Voters think America’s a better place since Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous “I have a dream” speech 50 years ago this week, but nearly nine-out-of-10 say race relations have gotten worse or remained about the same since the election of the nation’s first black president.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Likely U.S. Voters think race relations in this country are better today than they were 50 years ago. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 13% think those relations are worse today, while just as many (15%) say race relations are about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here). 

Special Offer:   Rasmussen Reader is now just $24.95 for a subscription through December 31, 2014. Sign up today!

How did you do in this summer’s Rasmussen Challenge?  Check the leaderboard.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 27-28, 2013 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Via: Rasmussen

Continue Reading....

U.S. deploys fifth warship near Syria

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon is moving a fifth warship armed with cruise missiles to the eastern Mediterranean Sea, giving the U.S. more firepower for a possible attack on Syria in response to alleged use of chemical weapons, a defense official said.

The guided-missile destroyer Stout is expected to arrive in the area Thursday, joining four other missile-carrying U.S. destroyers within range of Syria.

Each can carry up to 90 cruise missiles, though experts say they are likely carrying about half that number. Cruise missiles have a range of nearly 1,000 miles, allowing the vessels carrying them to stay well out of range of Syria's anti-ship missiles, even when they launch the missiles.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the United States would not act alone in any attack on Syria.

“We continue to consult with our allies,” Hagel said at a news conference in Brunei after a meeting of regional defense chiefs in Indonesia. “And as I think has been made very clear by President Obama -- and I have said it on a number of occasions -- if any action would be taken against Syria, it would be an international collaboration.”

Obama administration officials are scheduled to brief lawmakers late Thursday on the intelligence that U.S. officials say indicates Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government used chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 attack that is believed to have killed hundreds of people in rebel strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus.

Via: LA Times

Continue Reading....

Rush Limbaugh: Labor strike should target Barack Obama

While the fast-food strike has drawn much buzz from the media, Rush Limbaugh isn’t going to be swayed, saying that those striking have been “organized” and that the protests are “staged.”

“The question really is: Are these people doing this on their own or have they been organized? The obvious answer is they’ve been organized. Once you see them say, ‘Si, se puede,’ and attacking the minimum wage, you know it,” the conservative radio host said on his Thursday show according to a transcript. “But it’s Obamacare. It’s Obama’s economy that they should be protesting. Obama’s economy, Obamacare is what has led to whatever circumstances make them unhappy.”

Limbaugh said that this type of acceptance of a president with the current state of the nation would not be the case, if the country were being run by a Republican, saying that protesters had been taught to blame Republicans, using a vocal protester, Taisha Backs, as his example.

(Also on POLITICO: Fast food strike takes over 60 cities)

“She’s had the government of her choice for coming on five years now, and yet she’s still mad at people who don’t have any power to affect her at all, at least not in politics,” he said. “This woman’s obviously mad at the Republicans. That’s what she’s been told to be. But the point is that none of them blame Obama. They’re livid.”

Limbaugh also had one more thing for the discontent strikers to think about — immigration, saying it would be “fun” to see the situation the employees would find themselves in if amnesty were given to people who would be willing to do the jobs for less pay.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading....

[CARTOON] What We Have Become

Via: California Political Review

NFL, players reach proposed $765M settlement of concussion-related lawsuits

PHILADELPHIA –  The NFL and more than 4,500 former players want to resolve concussion-related lawsuits with a $765 million settlement that would fund medical exams, concussion-related compensation and medical research, a federal judge said Thursday.

The plaintiffs include at least 10 members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, including former Dallas Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett. They also include Super Bowl-winning quarterback Jim McMahon and the family of Pro Bowl linebacker Junior Seau, who committed suicide last year.

Many former players with neurological conditions believe their problems stem from on-field concussions. The lawsuits accused the league of hiding known risks of concussions for decades to return players to games and protect its image.

The NFL has denied any wrongdoing and has insisted that safety has always been a top priority.

Senior U.S. District Judge Anita Brody in Philadelphia announced the proposed settlement Thursday after months of court-ordered mediation. She still must approve it at a later date.

The settlement likely means the NFL won't have to disclose internal files about what it knew, when, about concussion-linked brain problems. Lawyers had been eager to learn, for instance, about the workings of the league's Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, which was led for more than a decade by a rheumatologist.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Cruz: Why is Parliament — but not Congress — debating Syria?

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says it’s “unacceptable” that members of the British House of Commons are having a vigorous debate about that country’s policy towards Syria but Congress is staying home.

The Republican tweeted an image to his 116,000 followers on Thursday of Prime Minister David Cameron debating the topic on top of another photo showing the empty floor of the U.S. Senate.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...