Only Ones that did not take a bailout.

Woman shot in the head

Linda
Burnett, 29 , a resident of San Diego, was visiting her in-laws and
while there went to a nearby supermarket to pick up some groceries.

Later, her
husband noticed her sitting in her car in the driveway with the
windows rolled up and with her eyes closed, with both hands behind the
back of her head. He became concerned and walked over to the car.

He noticed
that Linda's eyes were now open and she looked very strange.

He asked her
if she was okay, and Linda replied that she had been shot in the back
of the head and had been holding her brains in for over an hour.

The husband
called the paramedics, who broke into the car because the doors were
locked and Linda refused to remove her hands from her head.

When they
finally got in, they found that Linda had a wad of bread dough on the
back of her head. A Pillsbury biscuit canister had exploded from the
heat, making a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot, and the wad of
dough hit her in the back of her head. When she reached back to find
out what it was, she felt the dough and thought it was her brains. She
initially passed out but quickly recovered. >

Linda is a
blonde, a Democrat, and an Obama supporter, but that could all be a
coincidence. The defective biscuit canister was analyzed and the
expiration date was from 2008, so it was determined to be Bush's
fault.

Now I know
you have a smile on your face...so pass it on.

Newspaper Fires Opinion Editor who told Obama to “Shove It”

 

Aug 1, 2013

 Print This Post
By Todd Starnes
The Chattanooga Times Free Press editorial page editor who criticized President Obama’s jobs plan courtesy of a Johnny Paycheck song is now out of a job.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR PITHY COMMONSENSE CONSERVATIVE NEWS. CLICK HERE!
Drew Johnson’s editorial, titled “Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough,” went viral and drew national attention earlier this week when President Obama visited the city.
The newspaper released a statement Thursday saying Johnson had been fired for “placing a headline on an editorial outside of normal editing procedures.”
“The headline was inappropriate for this newspaper,” the statement read. “It was not the original headline approved for publication, and Johnson violated the normal editing process when he changed the headline.”
Johnson, who had been with the newspaper for just over a year, addressed his firing on Twitter.
“I just became the first person in the history of newspapers to be fired for writing a paper’s most-read article,” he tweeted.
Johnson defended the headline, noting that “we change headlines all the time without incident or issue.”
The newspaper denied Johnson’s firing had anything to do with the content of his editorial.
“The Free Press page has often printed editorials critical of the president and his policies,” the newspaper stated.
The Times Free Press has two editorial pages — one conservative and the other liberal.
“This newspaper places high value on expressions of divergent opinion, but will not permit violations of its standards,” the newspaper stated.
Conservatives cheered but some of Johnson’s fellow journalists were not so pleased. Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jim Galloway called it “rude” and “downright hostile.”
On the bright side, Johnson tweeted that “I do have time to work on the roasted chestnut business now.”

IRS chief says he'd rather not switch to ObamaCare plan

The head of the agency tasked with enforcing ObamaCare said Thursday that he'd rather not get his own health insurance from the system created by the health care overhaul. 
"I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I'm pleased with rather than go through a change if I don't need to go through that change," said acting IRS chief Danny Werfel, during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing.
The statement quickly fueled Republican criticism of the law, as well as their calls to block the IRS from enforcing it.
"Count the head of the IRS among the growing list of folks that includes Big Labor and the law's chief architect who are deeply skeptical of the president's signature achievement and don't want any part of it," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a statement. "No American -- even the head of the IRS -- should be subjected to ObamaCare."
Daily politics news delivered to your inbox: sign up for our newsletter
Werfel, in his testimony, was trying to address concerns from IRS employees and other federal workers who do not want to be forced into the so-called insurance "exchanges" -- regulated marketplaces where insurance, much of it subsidized, will be sold as early as next year. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., has been pushing a bill that would force federal workers into the exchanges, and out of their federal health care plans.
The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents IRS workers, recently came out against that bill and urged members to oppose it.
Asked about the NTEU position, Werfel said he could offer his "perspective" as a federal employee. He said the Affordable Care Act was designed to "provide an option or an alternative" for individuals who do not have affordable coverage.
"And all else being equal, I think if you're an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you're probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process," Werfel said.
Other employees in the private sector, however, might not get that choice -- amid concerns that the costs and regulations associated with the law could compel some employers to drop coverage for workers and/or reduce staffing levels to contain costs, sending more workers into the ObamaCare exchanges.
Some Republicans in Congress are trying to ramp up efforts to stall the law. The House voted last month to delay the law's key insurance mandates, while Republicans in the Senate have launched a separate effort to try and defund the law in the next fiscal year's budget. A number of Republicans, though, are not on board with that effort, saying it does not have the votes to succeed.
Cornyn, in response to Werfel's testimony, urged the acting IRS chief to back his legislation to block the IRS from enforcing the health care law.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/01/irs-chief-says-hed-rather-not-switch-over-to-obamacare-plan/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2alQ0T3Ff

What If Trayvon Were White? August 1, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. A couple of weeks ago, Barack Obama held a press conference to discuss a local court case. Highly unusual. Actually, unheard of. Why on Earth would the President get involved in a local court case? Obama just can’t let the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case go because he is obsessed by race.
Obama asked the key question, “What if Trayvon was white?” So I’ve set out here to examine that very question. What if Trayvon were white and George Zimmerman were black? Obama is right: Everything would have been different about the case.
If Trayvon were white, there would have been no national headlines. No one outside Sanford, Fla., would have even heard about the case. A black Zimmerman would never have been charged with a crime. And if there had been a trial and a black Zimmerman had been found not guilty, you can bet your last dollar that Obama’s Justice Department would not be considering civil rights charges. If they did, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would call it double jeopardy and a modern-day lynching of an innocent black man. That’s right; they’d be marching in the streets to defend the black Zimmerman.
The reality is that white Americans are killed by black Americans every day, but the national media never report it because they are afraid of being called racist. I can’t remember ever seeing or hearing race mentioned on the national news unless it is a white-on-black crime. And then, of course, it is the centerpiece of the story and always blamed on racism.
By the way, Zimmerman isn’t white. He is Hispanic. But liberals never let facts get in the way of a good story. That’s why the media and the race-baiters have coined a new phrase: “white Hispanic.” Sounds like a new race was invented just to justify liberals’ use of the word “racism” to discuss this case.
The same fear of being called racist is exactly the reason the national media never reports black-on-black crime, which has become a national tragedy. Cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Obama’s Chicago are young black male killing fields. They are more dangerous for black Americans than serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. Why don’t the national media report on this tragedy? Why hasn’t Obama ever held a press conference to discuss that crisis? It is certainly much more devastating to the black community.
Could Obama name any of the black murder victims in Chicago that were shot by other blacks during the Zimmerman trial? I’ll bet not. Why are all those young dead black men that also look like Obama’s son any less important? Is it because their deaths don’t stir up racial anger or resentment? Is it because none of their deaths move his agenda forward?
Here’s another difference: If the victim, Martin, were white, there’d be no involvement by Sharpton, Jackson or the Congressional Black Caucus, nor tweets by liberal Hollywood celebrities, nor protests across America. When was the last time any of the race-baiters weighed in on a murder involving a white American? When was the last time a white person being murdered resulted in protests or rioting? Can you name one?
Have white people ever protested en masse about a black accused criminal getting found not guilty? Did the O.J. Simpson verdict cause rioting by white Americans?
Here is something else we know: If Martin had been white, the President of the United States would never have gotten involved in a local court case. Never. So why did he get involved here? The primary reason is to create a distraction from the tragedy of his failed policies and never-ending scandals. He is doing all he can to keep Americans from focusing on the sinking U.S. economy; the unthinkable national debt; the record number of Americans on welfare and food stamps; the millions of people left jobless by his anti-business policies; the bankruptcy of Detroit (which was ruled 100 percent by Democrats for more than 50 years); the murder, mayhem and out-of-control gun violence of his hometown Chicago (with the strictest gun laws in the Nation); the unraveling of Obamacare; the Internal Revenue Service scandal; the Benghazi, Libya, scandal; the Associate Press spying scandal; the James Rosen spying scandal; the Kathleen Sebilius extortion scandal; the Operation Fast and Furious scandal; and wars and unrest all over the Mideast.
The reality is Obama is using Martin to change the subject. He’s hiding behind Martin’s “murder” to get the media and voters’ minds off his own scandals and failures. Just as he has done repeatedly, Obama is changing the conversation to save his own skin. Martin is Obama’s W.M.D. (weapon of mass distraction). He’ll exploit Martin as long as he possibly can, so he doesn’t have to explain his own failures and scandals. As Saul Alinsky taught Obama, “The ends justify the means.”
Don’t forget the IRS scandal just happened to deepen on the very day Obama chose to bring up Martin at an impromptu press conference. We found out that Obama’s political appointee was at the very center of the IRS scandal and that he met with Obama only two days before the IRS harassment against conservatives started.
Another obvious difference is if the victim were white, Obama would never have weighed in about “white angst” or “white pain.” Should our President be feeling the pain of only one race of Americans? What about the rest of us? Don’t our anger or feelings count? Isn’t Obama the President of all Americans, of all races? Is this President trying to bring us together or purposely tear us apart?
In the end though, Obama is right. If Martin were white, this would all be different – 100 percent different. And if Obama were a white President and he weighed in on a local black-on-white murder, he’d be called racist, ignorant and insensitive, and he would be drummed out of office by the liberal media, race-baiters and the NAACP.

You know the definition of a racist, don’t you? Anyone winning an argument with a liberal. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for PersonalLiberty.com. See you next week. Same time, same place. God bless America.

Polls