Yellen: Weak Job market will require lots of help for "some time"

Speaking at the National Interagency Community Reinvestment Conference in Chicago on Monday, Fed Chairman Janet Yellen asserted that the abysmal US job market will likely remain in an egregious state for some time, hence, she said the Federal Reserve's current policies of massive bond-buying and ultra-low interest rates is "still needed, and will be for some time."

The following are excerpts from Yellen's address:

The recovery still feels like a recession to many Americans, and it also looks that way in some economic statistics... In some ways, the job market is tougher now than in any recession. The numbers of people who have been trying to find work for more than six months or more than a year are much higher today than they ever were since records began decades ago...

More than seven million people... are working part time but want a full-time job. As a share of the workforce, that number is very high historically... There are real people behind the statistics, struggling to get by and eager for the opportunity to build better lives...

One reason why I believe it is appropriate for the Federal Reserve to continue to provide substantial help to the labor market... is because of the evidence I see that there remains considerable slack in the economy and the labor market... Slack means that there are significantly more people willing and capable of filling a job than there are jobs for them to fill.

During a period of little or no slack, there still may be vacant jobs and people who want to work, but a large share of those willing to work lack the skills or are otherwise not well suited for the jobs that are available. If unemployment were mostly structural [and not due to a considerable slack in the economy and the labor market], if workers were unable to perform the jobs available, then the Federal Reserve’s efforts to create jobs would not be very effective.

Now let me explain why I believe there is still considerable slack in the labor market, why I think there is room for continued help from the Fed for workers... One form of evidence for slack is found in other labor market data, beyond the unemployment rate or payrolls... For example, the seven million people who are working part time but would like a full-time job..., the existence of such a large pool of “partly unemployed” workers, is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate. Statistics on job turnover also point to considerable slack in the labor market...

Firms... have been reluctant to increase the pace of hiring. Likewise, the number of people who voluntarily quit their jobs is noticeably below levels before the recession; that is an indicator that people are reluctant to risk leaving their jobs because they worry that it will be hard to find another. It is also a sign that firms may not be recruiting very aggressively to hire workers away from their competitors.

A second form of evidence for slack is that the decline in unemployment has not helped raise wages for workers as in past recoveries. Workers in a slack market have little leverage to demand raises. Labor compensation has increased an average of only a little more than 2 percent per year since the recession, which is very low by historical standards.... [Editor's Note: The egregious economy under Obama has resulted in a low increase in wages, hence Obama has decided to mandate an increase in the minimum wage to make up for his own ineptitude.]

Labor market slack has also surely been a factor in holding down compensation. The low rate of wage growth is, to me, another sign that the Fed’s job is not yet done.

A third form of evidence related to slack concerns the characteristics of the extraordinarily large share of the unemployed who have been out of work for six months or more. These workers find it exceptionally hard to find steady, regular work...

The concern is that the long-term unemployed may remain on the sidelines, ultimately dropping out of the workforce. But the data suggest that the long-term unemployed look basically the same as other unemployed people in terms of their occupations, educational attainment, and other characteristics. And, although they find jobs with lower frequency than the short-term jobless do, the rate at which job seekers are finding jobs has only marginally improved for both groups. That is, we have not yet seen clear indications that the short-term unemployed are finding it increasingly easier to find work relative to the long-term unemployed...

A final piece of evidence of slack in the labor market has been the behavior of the participation rate – the proportion of working-age adults that hold or are seeking jobs. Participation falls in a slack job market when people who want a job give up trying to find one... [The participation rate] now stands at 63 percent, the same level as in 1978 [when Jimmy Carter was President], when a much smaller share of women were in the workforce. Lower participation could mean that the 6.7 percent unemployment rate is overstating the progress in the labor market. ["Could mean?!" Heh....]

Based on the evidence, my own view is that a significant amount of the decline in participation during the recovery is due to slack, another sign that help from the Fed can still be effective.

Since late 2008, the Fed has taken extraordinary steps to revive the economy... There is little doubt that without these actions, the recession and slow recovery would have been far worse...

For the many reasons I have noted today, I think this extraordinary commitment is still needed and will be for some time, and I believe that view is widely shared by my fellow policymakers at the Fed

Afghan violence rages on

NATO troops will finalize their pullout from Afghanistan by the end of this year in accordance with President Obama's so-called "exit strategy", but that doesn't mean there is any end in sight for the widespread violence, wanton destruction and absolute mayhem that is wreaking havoc upon the country.

Here's a small sampling of the latest violence via the AP:

The Taliban launched a brazen assault in the Afghan capital on Tuesday, with a suicide bomber detonating his vehicle outside an election office on the edge of Kabul while two other gunmen stormed into the building, killing four people and trapping dozens of employees inside.

Insurgents also carried out a number of attacks elsewhere across the country killing at least 10 people, many of them members of the country's security forces, including a woman police official in southern Helmand province.

In Kabul, a candidate for a seat on a provincial council was among those killed when insurgents stormed the election office. Two election workers and a policeman were also among the dead...

The Taliban claimed responsibility in a statement to media...

Also Tuesday, insurgents carried out a number of attacks across the country.

A suicide bomber blew himself up in northern Kunduz province. while in northeastern Kunar province three insurgents stormed the state-owned New Kabul Bank. In eastern Khost province, dozens of insurgents attacked a police outpost on the border with Pakistan.

In southern Helmand province, where the Taliban control vast areas, a woman police official was shot and killed in her home.

Five people were killed and another 20 were wounded in northern Kunduz province when a suicide bomber blew himself up during a traditional buzkashi match __ which features a headless goat, said provincial police chief Gen. Mustafa Mohsini...

In the government-owned New Kabul Bank in Asadabad, the capital of northeastern Kunar province, two policemen were killed and three others wounded in an attack carried out by three insurgents with suicide vests...

In eastern Khost province, dozens of insurgents armed with rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns laid siege to a border outpost. Provincial Police Chief Faizullah Ghyrat said two police border guards were killed...

In other developments, Afghan police said they detained eight senior employees of a private security company that provided guards to the Kabul hotel attacked by the Taliban last week.

The interior ministry said in a statement that the company employed by the Serena Hotel was negligent, which enabled the four attackers to hide small handguns in their shoes and avoid detection to enter the premises on Thursday evening.

The gunmen opened fire inside the hotel restaurant, killing nine people, including two children and four foreigners...

Obama's low approval ratings could cost Dems in midterm elections, poll shows

President Obama's low job-approval rating could cost the Democratic Party in November's midterm elections, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal noted on Wednesday citing a new poll conducted jointly by the two news media outlets that shows 54% of Americans disapprove of the President's job performance while only 41% approve of his job performance, his worst job approval rating in the survey’s history.

Of equal significance, or perhaps greater significance, to the midterm elections, the poll shows that 42% of Americans are less likely to vote for a candidate who is endorsed by President Obama, while only 22% are more likely to vote for a candidate who is endorsed by Obama. Additionally, 48% of Americans say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who is a solid supporter of the Obama administration, while only 26% say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who is a solid supporter of the Obama administration.

33% of Americans say their "vote for Congress this November" will "be a vote to send a signal of opposition to President Obama", while 24% say their vote "will be a vote to send a signal of support for President Obama." 41 percent say their vote will not be "a signal either way about Obama."

56% of Americans "disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the economy", while only 41% approve.

53% of Americans "disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling foreign policy", while only 41% approve.

42% of Americans strongly believe the new health care law [Obamacare] was a bad idea, while only 26% strongly believe it was a good idea.

Leaving out the word "strongly", 49% of Americans believe the new health care law was a bad idea, while only only 35% believe it was a good idea.

47% of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports repealing the health care reform law, while only 32% say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports the repeal of Obamacare.

57% of Americans think the United States is currently in an economic recession, while only 41% think the US is currently not in an economic recession.

30% of Americans have very negative feelings toward Obama, 21% of Americans have very positive feelings toward him.

67% of Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports cutting federal spending, 14% are less lkely to vote for such a candidate.

44% of Americans prefer a Congress controlled by Republicans, 43% prefer a Congress controlled by Democrats.

42% of Americans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who "places a major emphasis on more conservative social and religious values", while only 29% say they are less likely to vote for such a candidate.

41% of Americans say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports legalizing the purchase of small quantities of marijuana by adults for their personal use, 31% are more likely to vote for such a candidate.

72% of Americans think of Russia as more of an adversary than an ally, 19% of Americans think of Russia as more of an ally.

It is worthy to note that, although the poll shows significant opposition to the policies, ideals and ideologies of President Obama and his Democratic minions, 43% of the poll respondents said that they think of themselves as Democrats - whether that entails being a strong Democrat, a not very strong Democrat, or an Independent/lean Democrat - while 37% of the respondents said they think of themselves as Republicans, whether that entails being a strong Republican, a not very strong Republican, or an Independent/lean Republican. That's a 6% differential. The remaining 20% of the poll respondents considered themselves either strictly independents, none of the above, or they weren't sure what they were.

Which means that the poll respondents, of whom a majority were Democrats, expressed significant opposition to President Obama's extreme left-wing agenda.

You don't hear President Obama talking about Libya anymore

You don't hear President Obama talking about Libya anymore.

Obama no longer gloats about the important role he played in the Libyan uprising. That's because the terrorist attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi and the ongoing violence and perpetual chaos in the country is really nothing to gloat about. Hence, Obama has chosen to omit Libya from his talking points and to remove the five-letter obscenity from his lexicon.

But aside from the unremitting violence and chaos, the Libyan uprising also succeeded in creating a serious, ongoing problem of weapons trafficking from Libya, which, according to UN officials, "is fueling conflict and insecurity - including terrorism - on several continents."

No, you don't hear Obama talking about Libya anymore.

Reuters reported on Monday:

U.N. experts say Libya has become a primary source of illicit weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles, which have been trafficked to at least 14 countries and are fueling conflicts on several continents...

The [UN] panel furthermore noted that investigations relating to transfers to 14 countries reflected a highly diversified range of trafficking dynamics; and that trafficking from Libya was fueling conflict and insecurity - including terrorism - on several continents.

No, you don't hear Obama talking about Libya anymore; it's no longer part of his resume.

Jolly sinks Sink in Obamcare referendum election

In what was seen as an early test of how President Obama's health care overhaul will play in November's midterm elections, Republican David Jolly, who seeks to repeal Obamacare, defeated Democrat Alex Sink on Tuesday to capture the special election in Florida’s 13th Congressional District.

The Washington Post noted earlier in the day: "Republicans say that if their first-time candidate defeats a seasoned veteran, it will demonstrate just how toxic the health-care law will be for Democrats this fall."

Apparently, Obamacare's toxicity is so strong that it enabled the first-time candidate to sink the seasoned Democrat veteran, Alex Sink - which, is jolly good news for the majority of Americans who are opposed to Obamcare.

Washington Post: Washington not focused on "the bankruptcy of Obama administration policy"

"Washington's seemingly inability to focus on more than one international crisis at a time has been a boon to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It also has diverted attention from the bankruptcy of Obama administration policy," the Washington Post asserted in an editorial on Monday.

The problem is, the Post expects everyone else to focus on Obama's multiple foreign policy failures, when Obama can't even handle one crisis at a time, as the Post concedes implicitly later on in its editorial.

And while the current and former White House Press Secretaries - Jay Carney and Robert Gibbs - have insisted on a number of occasions that President Obama is a multitasker who is able walk and chew gum at the same, it is quite evident that, even when Obama's not chewing gum, he is still unable to walk, and that he can't even handle one task at a time.

In truth, Washington might be able to focus on Obama's failed policies if there weren't so many of them, but the endless stream of Obama failures keep popping up in rapid succession one after another, making it virtually impossible to focus on each and every failure, and his multitude of bankrupt policies.

Oh, well...

From the Washington Post:

Washington's seemingly inability to focus on more than one international crisis at a time has been a boon to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It also has diverted attention from the bankruptcy of Obama administration policy.

As Russia invaded Ukraine, the Assad regime proceeded unmolested and almost unnoticed with a merciless offensive of “barrel-bombing,” in which helicopters drop explosive containers filled with nails and other deadly shrapnel on apartment buildings, schools and hospitals. The latest target is the town of Yabroud, near the Lebanese border. In other areas, the regime continued to wage a war of starvation, besieging civilians in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution approved more than two weeks ago.

Mr. Assad is missing deadlines on the promised destruction of his chemical weapons arsenal. Two deadlines for handing over chemical stocks have passed, and international inspectors say the regime will likely violate a March 15 requirement for destroying 12 production facilities. A bogus election is being prepared to extend Mr. Assad’s presidential term for another seven years. That follows the regime’s refusal to discuss a plan for a transitional government at a peace conference in Geneva last month, which caused the talks to collapse.

The breakdown in Geneva stripped the Obama administration of the fig leaf it had used to cover its failure to develop a workable policy for Syria. For nine months, Secretary of State John F. Kerry had claimed that, in concert with Russia, the United States would use the Geneva process to end Mr. Assad’s rule. As that fantasy unraveled, President Obama hinted at new strategies: “We are continuing to explore every possible avenue to solve this problem,” the president said Feb. 11.

If there has been a change in U.S. policy since then, it hasn’t been detectable.

As you can see for yourselves, the Post is clearly suggesting that Obama's handling of the Syrian crisis was inept long before he was confronted with a new crisis in Europe.

Yep, Obama is clearly incapable of walking, even when he's not chewing gum.

[Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)], the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, both expressed bewilderment at a hearing last week over the administration’s seeming inactivity.

Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns stated bluntly that Syria now presents “enormous challenges” to U.S. interests that “require a steady, comprehensive American strategy.”

Yet when senators asked about the U.S. response, Mr. Burns could offer only vague phrases about “ways to support the moderate opposition” and coordination with other rebel supporters. As Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) noted, “We have been hearing this for years now, and since we first began hearing it, I would guess a hundred thousand people have died.”

The Obama administration unquestionably must answer the Russian offensive in Crimea. But that does not lessen the critical threat to U.S. interests in Syria or excuse the president’s continuing passivity. It’s time for decisive steps to achieve the U.S. objectives of checking al-Qaeda and reversing the regime’s military momentum.

Let's face it, Obama can't even handle one task at a time, and yet, the Washington Post, which seems to concede this point earlier in its editorial [implicitly], expects the President to walk and chew gum at the same time and handle two tasks simultaneously?! Are you kidding me?!

Senate Dems to pull all-nighter talking hot air

Twenty-six Democratic Senators will use the senate floor on Monday to conduct an all-night marathon talking hot air.

From 6:30 p.m on Monday until 9 a.m on Tuesday, the group, which calls itself the “climate caucus”, will speak not-stop about Global Warming and Climate change.

The "talkathon" is not technically considered a filibuster since no actual legislation is up for debate, but the hot air coalition hopes to draw media attention to its cause by talking hot air for hours on end.

Grueling, hectic 5 day schedule for Obama!

The US Presidency is not an easy job; just ask President Obama, who began a grueling five day schedule on Friday when he and his family flew off to Florida to spend the weekend at the Ocean Reef Club, a private membership club nestled in 2,500 secluded, tropical acres on the northern tip of Key Largo.

"For avid golfers like Obama, the property boasts two championship 18-hole golf courses," the AP noted. "The club also has a swimming lagoon, tennis courts, a spa and fitness center, a private airport and more than a dozen restaurants among its varied offerings."

However, the President's hectic schedule does not end there. Obama still has a couple of grueling days ahead of him as he welcomes college sports teams to the White House on Monday and flies off to New York on Tuesday for Democratic fundraisers.

Yep, the Presidency is definitely not an easy job - particularly for someone the likes of Obama who takes his job with the utmost of seriousness.

The President wrapped up his weekend getaway at "the Ocean Reef resort Sunday with a second round of golf in as many days, and headed back to Washington," the Washington Post reported.

"Obama spent the weekend with first lady Michelle Obama, daughters Malia and Sasha, and an assortment of friends, including former NFL star Ahmad Rashad and former NBA star Alonzo Mourning, both of whom joined the president on the links," the Post noted.

"The first family boarded the Marine One helicopter... and enjoyed a scenic ride to Homestead Air Reserve Base, where they boarded Air Force One for the trip back to Washington. This week, Obama will welcome college sports teams to the White House on Monday and travel to New York for Democratic fundraisers on Tuesday, officials said."

Yep, that's five successive days of grueling, arduous work for Obama.

But ultimately the Presidency is an exhausting and demanding job. And Obama, it seems, is more than willing to take the burden upon himself - for the good of the country.

Only after the President is finished tending to these very serious matters will he take a breather and tend to more light-hearted matters - like his meeting at the White House on Wednesday with the Ukrainian Prime Minister.

Yep, business before pleasure - that's what the Presidency is all about...........

Robert Gates: Obama defense cuts sending signal that US is not interested in protecting its Global interests

Appearing today on Fox News Sunday, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked whether he would have resigned as Defense Secretary - if he were still in office - rather than preside over the current defense budget cuts that President Obama is implementing?

Mr. Gates was also asked whether the huge cuts in defense spending "do damage to the nation's security?"

"Well, I don't know the answer to the first question [whether he would have resigned as Defense Secretary]. (But, as far as the second question is concerned), I think that cutting the defense budget in significant ways right now is a serious mistake,"said Gates. "You know, when we've cut the budget before, at the end of the Cold War, at the end of Vietnam, and at other times, it's been because we thought the world was going to be a safer place - at least we thought so temporarily at the time."

"No one can make that case right now. You look at the situation in Ukraine, and our relationships with Russia, you look a the tensions between China and Japan and in the South China Sea. You look at Iran and North Korea. These guys are operating on the 20th Century model of nation states: boundaries matter, strategic interests matter, zero-sum game, I win, you lose. This is the way these countries look at the world, it's different than the way the West Europeans and we look at it."

"And frankly, the pace at which both the Europeans and the US is cutting their defenses, regardless of what the facts on the ground, in terms of the number of ships and the number of planes, it certainly sends a signal that we are not interested in protecting our Global interests," said Gates - who, while serving as Defense Secretary, acquiesced, and bowed to President Obama's budget cut demands, despite the inherent dangers involved in such capitulation - although, it also true that cuts in defense spending have increased considerably since Gates left office.

Nevertheless, according to the former Defense Secretary, the President is sending a signal that the US is not interested in protecting its Global interests.

Which ultimately means Obama is showing competence in at least one area: his ability to send signals.........

Obama: No regime change for Iran's regime changing regime!

Despite the fact that Iran is using terrorism as a vehicle to implement regime change in other countries - the Obama administration has reassured the Iranian regime that it does not support regime change in Iran - thereby enabling, and empowering, the Iranian regime to facilitate regime change in other countries, with impunity, via the regime's trusty and dependable tool, terrorism.

A real head-scratcher - compliments of the Obama administration. And par for the course......

Over the last several years, and in recent weeks, Bahrain has witnessed an endless stream of bomb explosions and attacks that have wrought death, injury and destruction upon its citizenry.

The pathetic UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, commenting on a recent terrorist attack in Bahrain, said that there is no justification for such acts of violence.

A vacuous, bold statement from the UN Secretary-General! Heh...

Shia cleric Sheikh Abdullah al-Muqabi, sociologist at the Ministry of Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments in Bahrain, said that Iran and Hezbollah have been "supporting the criminal activity and terrorist attacks in Bahrain."

According to a Dubai police chief, the perpetrator of a bombing attack this week in Bahrain was a frequent visitor to Lebanon and received training on the use explosives from Hezbollah.

The chairwoman of the Bahraini parliamentary foreign affairs, defense and national security committee asserted that there are "Iranian fingerprints" and "Hezbollah's hand" in these attacks.

"Many suspects have been convicted of being involved or associated with Iran or Hezbollah," she said.

Bahrain's Foreign Minister, Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, said that, "Iran has sought to bring explosives into Bahrain and has trained terrorists to use them. As a result, Bahrain has entered a dangerous stage..."

The Bahrani Foreign Minister noted Iran's "active involvement in: indirect training of violent actors in Bahrain through proxy groups based outside Bahrain; emergence of insurgent groups directly linked to the Al Quds Force, a special unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard; arrests across the GCC [Arab Gulf states] of individuals being directed by Iranian operatives; and seizures of large amounts of deadly weaponry. These are a few recent examples..."

Mr. Khalifa called for international measures to be taken against Iran in the face of "this blatant incitement and interference in Bahrain's affairs as well as support of terrorism".

In February of 2013, I noted:

Bahrain's National Security Agency announced the discovery of an Iranian backed "terrorist cell" in Bahrain that was planning to attack highly-sensitive civil and military sites and to target public figures. Bahraini Security Chief, Tareq al-Hassan, said the terrorist cell "brought in arms and explosives" and was prepared "to launch operations at a moment decided by their command in Iran."

It is also worthy to note that the Israeli Navy on Wednesday intercepted an Iranian shipment of arms that was being delivered to Hamas. The shipment included rockets capable of carrying warheads with over 300 pounds of explosives.

But ultimately, while Iran seeks both regime change and absolute destruction for its neighbors - Obama does not support regime change in Iran because..., well, because he is Obama........

Hence, Mr. Obama refused to support the protesters in Iran during the mass demonstrations that took place in the country in 2009; and he currently refuses to support countless Iranians who loathe, and oppose, the Mullocracy.

The reason for this phenomenon is simple; it's because..., well..., it's because he's Obama........

Simple enough?

I concluded my February, 2013 post with the following tongue-in-cheek assessment:

The truth of the matter is, Iran is conducting these terrorist operations for peaceful purposes only, just as they are developing their nuclear program solely, and exclusively, for peaceful purposes. Hence, it would behoove the President to continue to adhere to his policy of refraining from meddling in Iran's peaceful pursuits.

President Obama has continuously reassured the Iranian government that he is not seeking, and will not seek, regime change in Iran. And this is indeed the correct path to take, for only a non-meddling policy on Obama's part, that ensures there will be no regime change in Iran, will afford the Iranian government the opportunity to further engage in their peaceful activities, [including their peaceful regime change activities].

Lawmakers reject Obama logic: Defending despicable cop-killer doesn't make one qualified to lead Justice Department’s civil rights division

If President Obama had a son, he would not look like Daniel Faulkner, the Philadelphia police officer who was brutally murdered in 1981 by Mumia Abu-Jamal. Hence, not surprisingly,the President expressed shock on Wednesday when Republican and Democratic lawmakers were unable to stomach his nominee to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division - a fellow by the name of Debo Adegbile - who just happened [by mere coincidence, of course] to serve as defense attorney for Abu-Jamal.

President Obama's choice for the civil rights division post was blocked in congress by a 52-47 vote, as seven Democratic lawmakers had the good conscience to join their Republican counterparts in rejecting Obama's nominee.

The Washington Examiner noted that, "Senate Democrats [previously] killed the filibuster for nominations because they wanted to be able to confirm the president's choices for top administration positions even if Republicans were united in opposition. From now on, Democrats ruled, nominations would be confirmed by a simple majority vote. With 55 Democrats in the Senate, and as few as 51 required for confirmation, the change virtually guaranteed success for the president's nominees. But even a rule change was not enough to save the nomination" of the notorious cop-killer's defense attorney.

President Obama, no doubt, believes that defending the notorious, heinous and brutal cop-killer is precisely what makes Mr. Adegbile highly qualified to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division, but, ultimately both Republicans and Democrats were unable to stomach the President's choice and his logic.

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday recounted the details of Mr. Faulkner's brutal murder.

The policeman was "conducting a routine traffic stop when Wesley Cook — also known as Mumia Abu-Jamal — shot him in the back," McConell said. "[Abu-Jamal} then stood over Officer Faulkner and shot him several more times in the chest.

"As Officer Faulkner lay dying in the street, defenseless, Abu-Jamal shot him in the face, killing him. At the hospital, Abu-Jamal bragged that he had shot Officer Faulkner and expressed his hope that he would die."

However, President Obama, whose son - if the President were to have a son - would not look like Daniel Faulkner, called the vote a "travesty", and asserted that, "Those who voted against [Adegbile's] nomination, denied the American people an outstanding public servant.”

However, in a letter that was read on the senate floor shortly before the vote, Mauren Faulkner, the widow of the slain police officer, wrote that, "Today, as my husband lies 33 years in his grave..., old wounds have once again been ripped open, and additional insult is brought upon our law enforcement community in this country by President Obama's nomination of Debo Adegbile."

According to the Washington Examiner, "Vice President Joe Biden arrived in the Senate chamber to break a possible tie -- a clear indication that the White House knew the nomination was in trouble. But there was no tie. Seven Democrats voted "no," joined by 44 Republicans... The vote was a clear defeat for President Obama, who himself practiced civil rights law before taking up politics."

Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat from the state of Pennsylvania - where the brutal murder occurred - issued a statement on Friday saying:

"It is important that we ensure that Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country have full confidence in their public representatives - both elected and appointed. The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well as the City of Philadelphia. After carefully considering this nomination and having met with both Mr. Adegbile as well as the Fraternal Order of Police, I will not vote to confirm the nominee."

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey issued a statement after the vote saying:

“Today is a good day for Pennsylvania, for America, and for those who believe in justice... I appreciate the bipartisan support of my [Democratic] colleagues... and from Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams in opposing the confirmation of Mr. Adegbile.

“Today the Senate affirmed that our criminal justice system must never be abused to propagate a dishonest, radical agenda. The American people, especially law enforcement and Maureen Faulkner, deserve better.”

Indeed. For contrary to the President's twisted ideology - defending a despicable cop-killer does not make one qualified to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division; if anything, it makes him totally unqualified and unfit for the job.

Putin is on the right side of history, Obama isn't fooling Everybody

Lambasting Vladimir Putin's recent incursion into Ukraine, President Obama made the claim that the Russian President is "on the wrong side of history." Mr. Obama based his claim on a deceptive and fictitious assertion that he has made time and time again, namely that "the Cold War is over."

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, the Deceiver-in-Chief mocked then-Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, for making a big fuss about Russia and for criticizing Obama's policies on Russia.

Romney is "stuck in a Cold War time warp," the Deceiver-in-Chief asserted while addressing the Democratic National Convention in September of 2012.

But the fact of the matter is, while the Cold War, in theory, may have ended - in practice, the Cold War continues till this very day, as evidenced by the positions Russia has taken time and time again - in the UN and outside of the UN - on virtually every issue that has arisen in the international arena - positions that deliberately run counter to the US positions.

Hence, Russia is merely embracing the policies and strategies that it has embraced until now, and Putin is simply aligning himself with his country's past and recent history; Putin is being consistent; he is clearly on the right side of history - both his country's past and recent history.

On the flip side, President Obama, with his illusionary and deceptive talking points about the Cold War and about terrorism, is on the wrong side of both past and recent history. For indeed, the Cold War is still in full force.

Some might call it naivety on Obama's part, I call it deliberate deception.

Which leads to me to a second point:

On Tuesday, President Obama said, with regards to the situation in Ukraine, that, "President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody."

Problem is, Putin doesn't need to fool anybody; he has been consistent, and his actions are consistent with Russia's past and recent history; Putin is on the right side of history.

Obama, on the other hand, is on the wrong side of past, and recent, history on just about every issue. And yet, he continues to fool a great many into believing his phony, illusionary talking points. However, unlike Putin, Obama desperately needs to throw the wool over people's eyes, otherwise he will no longer be the Pied Piper and his Presidential acting career will be over.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly told President Obama on Monday that she was not sure whether the Russian President was 'in touch with reality'. Putin is “in another world,” she said. But the fact of the matter is, Putin is clearly in touch with reality. Sadly, however, the Obama enthusiasts - who've been misled by the Pied Piper-in-Chief into believing that we are living in a new utopian era - have indeed lost touch with reality. Very sad, indeed.

And while Obama certainly deserves credit for his Pied Piper feats, it is nonetheless important to note what Abraham Lincoln once said, namely, that, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Obama may be a cool cat, but even a cool cat can not "fool all of the people all of the time."

45-state study: Obamacare offers less choice, higher prices, breaking another promise

From the Washington Examiner:

A new and comprehensive comparison of health insurance options offered by Obamacare versus private websites finds that President Obama's program offers less choice and higher prices than promised by the White House and leading Democrats.

Adding to the list of broken health care promises, the study from the National Center for Public Policy Research found that there were more and cheaper options available on websites outside the health insurance exchange in 2013 than on healthcare.gov and state Obamacare exchanges.

The report, "Obamacare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Prices,” looked at options available for a 27-year-old single person and a 57-year-old couple in metropolitan areas across 45 states.

The report found that a 27-year-old male had about 10 more policies to choose from on eHealthinsurance.com and finder.healthcare versus the exchange. The older couple had about nine more policy choices.

Ditto for the cost findings, with the 27-year-old male having access to 32 policies that cost less than the cheapest Obamacare offering, and the 57-year-old couple access to 29 cheaper policies.

"In general, consumers had substantially more policies to choose from on private websites such as eHealthinsurance.com and Finder.healthcare than they presently have on the exchanges," said the study.

"Obamacare supporters, including the president himself and Nancy Pelosi, claimed the exchanges would yield more choice and lower prices," said the study's author, David Hogberg. "This study shows those claims do not stand up.”