Liberal's Latest Call For a Protected Minority is Really UGLY!

 It started with African-Americans (at the time we called them Blacks), the Latino community and of course women (who are actually the majority, but I won't get into that now). After that group it expanded, to Asians, Muslims, gays, lesbians and transvestites.Which was followed by atheists, union members, criminals who served sentences in jail, people who have committed voter registration fraud (ACORN), groups associated with HAMAS such as CAIR, and of course people who are criminals because they came into the country illegally. Thanks to liberalism gone mad it seems that everyone is now a protected minority. Well its not everyone but just the minorities whom the liberals decide need the protection.

But the liberal's latest try at establishing a protected minority has gone too far.  Now some liberals want to have affirmative for a new group---the terminally ugly.  Yep now we have to protect people who are so ugly, when they were born the doctor slapped their mothers.

On Hurricane Sunday, the NY Times published an editorial called Ugly? You May Have a Case. In the piece Daniel S. Hamermesh, a professor of economics at the University of Texas, Austin, explained that ugly people do not make as much money as good looking ones(I guess that I am the exception to the rule). 

In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.

Maybe that's why rich people are sometimes called "the beautiful people."

According to this economics professor, a woman's looks helps them pick better mates, but it is the physical looks of men that impacts jobs and money.

Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice. Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects.

Then he starts getting crazy

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.

The mechanics of legislating this kind of protection are not as difficult as you might think. You might argue that people can’t be classified by their looks — that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That aphorism is correct in one sense: if asked who is the most beautiful person in a group of beautiful people, you and I might well have different answers. But when it comes to differentiating classes of attractiveness, we all view beauty similarly: someone whom you consider good-looking will be viewed similarly by most others; someone you consider ugly will be viewed as ugly by most others. In one study, more than half of a group of people were assessed identically by each of two observers using a five-point scale; and very few assessments differed by more than one point.

For purposes of administering a law, we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population. The difficulties in classification are little greater than those faced in deciding who qualifies for protection on grounds of disabilities that limit the activities of daily life, as shown by conflicting decisions in numerous legal cases involving obesity.

This guy is serious.  Maybe there could be some sort of sliding scale were the uglier one is the more help they get. The government could start out with something like "unconventional looks, aesthetically challenged, or forever virgin" and then move on to other terms as a persons looks got worse:

• got a great face for radio.


• look like they fell out of the ugly tree, hit all of the branches on the way down and got tangled up in the roots!


• coyote ugly


• Alan Colmes


• beat with the ugly stick


• double coyote ugly 


• 4 drink minimum


• OMG so fugly I want to puke

 I am sure the liberals can come up with their own terms.  The way things are going soon there will be protected minority called "People who are not in a minority." Maybe its time to stop this nonsense and understand that maybe if we stop trying to make excuses for why people succeed or not, more people will have the confidence to do their best and try and succeed.

At least that's the position of this fat, bald, very good looking Jewish guy, who hasn't had a full time job since Barack Obama became President (not that I am blaming anyone).

Barack Obama Vs. The American People (Obama's 2012 Strategy)

This weekend President Obama and his campaign team went on television and made it clear he will not be running against Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or any of the other Republican Candidates, no those candidates are too formidable in his mind. The president will also refuse to run on his record and to be honest who can blame him.  No based on what he said in his weekly address and supported by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs on the Sunday News shows, the enemy in this upcoming 2012 presidential campaign will be the Republicans in Congress and the American people.

Its an interesting yet disingenuous message that we have heard many times before. Grass-roots Americans in the form of the tea party  are forcing members of the Congressional Tea party caucus to take stands and stick to them which they do solely for political reasons. Even worse according to the presidential team, those positions are bad for the American people, and are the reason nothing gets done in Washington DC.



What positions are they talking about? Specifically the President is talking about some of those evil Tea Party positions such as, obey the constitution, do not add any more taxes until you can bring spending in line, and of course cut spending and reform entitlements lest the country go bankrupt. I would suggest that by taking those stands and sticking to them, despite all of the pressure to give in the tea party caucus is putting country in front of party and in front of their political careers.

The claim that it is the Tea Party caucus that has been holding up progress on legislation is also troubling.  The President has been running the country since January 2009. From inauguration day till January of this year when the GOP took over the house, Obama was working with two houses of Congress from his party. For most of that time, there were 60 Democrats in the  Senate making it filibuster proof! Isn't it reasonable to ask why was nothing done the first 75% of his term so far?

The answer to that question is the President and his party were pushing through programs that had nothing to do with Jobs, but had everything to do with putting political agenda in front of country, a trillion dollar stimulus program which included every type of pork possible, targeted to reelect Democrats.  Instead of having the stimulus dollars hit ASAP which would be most helpful to the economy, a large chunk of the money hit in early 2010, so it could be used as re-election pork. Instead of using the construction programs in the stimulus bill to help everybody, he directed the funds via executive toward his political supporters the unions, only 14% of construction shops are union. Costs for construction jobs were estimated at 20% higher because the president was helping is ideological base.

After the ill-fated stimulus was passed, in stead of working on jobs the President again put party needs in front of the country as the Democrats pushed first for cap and trade and then  for Obamacare. When cap and trade didn't pass, the EPA took up the baton and is trying to implement job-killing regulation on its own.

The job killing Obamacare program and the Chris Dodd/Barney Frank financial regulation bill followed.  Both of these efforts were passed to sate the progressive ideological base. Both of these efforts hurt rather than helped the economy.  So who exactly is putting party in front of Country?

Lets talk a bit about the War Effort.  Again in response to demands by his political base, President Obama executed a surge in Afghanistan which was smaller than his Generals recommended.  A year later, he announced a pull out from Afghanistan that was larger and faster than his Generals recommended. Once again this President is put his progressive politics in before the needs of the American people.

Twice before Congress rejected the Dream Act based on the will of the people. The reason for the rejection  is that the people believe that the first step must be to secure our borders. That would be the best thing for the country.  But because the President's support in the Latin community is softening, his Homeland Security Dept., is executing the amnesty program anyway.

In his two and a half years as President of the United States, Barack Obama constantly chose an agenda which placed the ideology of his progressive base in front of country.  He helped to push through major legislation which not only went against the will of the people, but the needs of the country, an improved economy and the SHMOTUS, VP Biden's favorite three letter word J-O-B-S. When he couldn't even get the support of a congress controlled by his own party, programs were implemented by executive fiat. It seems to me that it is the President and his progressive followers who are putting party and ideology in front of country. His latest political strategy, casting a grass roots effort of the American people as evil is just one more example of the progressive cynicism, they are dividing the country just to support their political agenda.

Ron Paul Congressional Hypocrite

Congressman Ron Paul is bad for America on so many levels. There were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today’s congressional standards.

On top of all that, Congressman Paul is a hypocrite.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

For example in last year's 111th Congress, Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 17  earmarks totaling almost $24 Million dollars

During the 2009 Fiscal Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling almost $81  million dollars. That's almost $105 million in earmarks over two years. Can you imagine if he wasn't a fiscal conservative?


In 2009 Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show to defend his earmarks.
If you cannot see video below click here

CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to “is this the most efficient place to house this program?” Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone elses district.

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn’t have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. The problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a “drooling crazy” type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good fiscal script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.

WARNING! By The End of This Year Egypt Might Be Run By a Radical Islamist Regime

By Barry Rubin

I'm not saying this lightly. For the first time, there is serious evidence not only for an Islamist-controlled parliament but even potentially for an Islamist president! It's iran all over again except in 1979 Carter didn't publicly demand the shah's overthrow and say he had no problem with Khomeini taking over. In fact, that's what Obama did in Egypt.

First the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood said it wouldn't run a candidate for president and would only contest one-third of the parliamentary seats.

Next, it said it wouldn’t run a presidential candidate and contest just 50 percent of the parliamentary seats. Even that is misleading since it could arrange with other Islamist parties not to compete against each other, thus potentially adding 5 to 10 percent more Islamists, that is a majority, to parliament..

Now, the Muslim Brotherhood says it will run a presidential candidate who might even conceivably win the election. Oh, but he will run as an independent. So that doesn’t count?

One reason for this change on the presidential election is that earlier on the Brotherhood was backing Muhammad ElBaradei. But since the two broke up over the referendum regarding the election timing and rules--ElBaradei thought the changes were too favorable to the Brotherhood so they dropped him--they had no one to support. By the way, the Brotherhood won that referendum by a landslide.

Ah, but it's okay because, according to Reuters, Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh, the Brotherhood’s candidate for president is a leading "reformist member" of the Brotherhood's Shura Council, its highest governing body. Right! He wants to reform Egypt into being an Islamist state.

An al-Ahram poll (it's still early, of course, to know how people will vote) shows Amr Moussa and Abul Futuh are tied at 20 percent with ElBaradei at 12 percent.

Note that since a presidential election would come after a strong Brotherhood showing in the parliamentary election, a lot of voters would be likely to want to join what seems to be the winning side. Also note that the Brotherhood candidate will have a strong organization behind him while Moussa won’t even have a party at all and ElBaradei’s forces should be pretty weak and concentrated largely in Cairo.

Then add into the mix that Abul Futuh will also be supported by non-Brotherhood Islamists while ElBaradei is running against three other “moderate democratic” types in competition for that sector of the votes.

The bottom line is that for the first time this week a Brotherhood takeover of Egypt in 2011 is really possible. Let me underline that point: before one could conceive that this might happen. Now there is hard evidence and real reason to believe that it might actually take place.

Up until now, I had thought that Amr Moussa might be Egypt’s next president with a strong Islamist presence in parliament but not a majority or near-majority. But now Moussa himself predicts that the Brotherhood will have, along with its allies, a majority. And even more recently it is possible that a Brotherhood leader will be elected president.

So here are our alternatives:

• Best-case scenario: A radical nationalist president, Moussa, and a strong Islamist contingent in parliament that will also have a big influence in writing the new Constitution. Moussa is anti-Israel and anti-American but might be restrained by his pragmatic streak. On the other hand, the need to play demagogue—he won’t have any money to subsidize food more and provide additional jobs—and to keep the Islamists happy or even outbid them—pushes him toward adventurism.

• Worst-case scenario: A Brotherhood president and parliament transforming Egypt into an Islamist state, backing Hamas fully, subverting U.S. influence and other Arab states, and potentially playing jihad in a full-scale war with Israel.

Remember that President Barack Obama said that having the Brotherhood in government is okay with him. So I guess he'll just watch the result of his handiwork and cheer on the results of the process he helped set in motion.

A taste of the future was provided by the massive anti-Israel demonstrations in Cairo today.

Supposedly the rally was to protest sectarian violence within Egypt but it turned into one favoring more sectarian violence next door.

The Brotherhood has now escalated its demands to breaking diplomatic relations with Israel and expelling the Israeli ambassador. Remember all of those articles and statements about how the revolution was good for Israel if only those silly Israelis woke up and understand reality as well as people in Washington DC and the Upper West Side of Manhattan?

Oh, and guess how the demonstration was largely organized. Ready? On Facebook! Hahaha. Those youthful hip twittering moderate young people!

We can also look forward to similar demonstrations in Palestine’s capital, after independence takes place, demanding an abrogation of the Israel-Palestine peace treaty and the end to Israeli occupation of…Israel.

After people finally figured out in April-May what they should have known in January-February about Egypt, might be better to learn the lesson now rather than to repeat the same mistakes infinitely?

PS: Love the AP's "evenhanded" explanation of the Right to Return issue:

"The Palestinians have long maintained that the refugees have a moral and legal right to return to what was once Palestine—including land which is now Israel. But Israel has argued that granting the right of return would compromise the country's identity as the world's only Jewish state."

Yes, all those riots and massive terrorism leading to bloody civil war, with all the neighbors joining in, followed by the genocidal murder of millions of Jews and the transformation of Israel into an Arab and possibly (probably?) Islamist state that would ally with Iran, work to overturn all the region's non-radical regimes, trigger additional wars and massive suffering, and destroy U.S. influence in the Middle East would definitely be an inconvenience.

Ah, but it's okay because, according to Reuters, Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh, is a leading "reformist member" of the Brotherhood's Shura Council. Right! He wants to reform Egypt into being an Islamist state.

An al-Ahram poll (it's still early) shows Amr Moussa and Abul Futuh are tied at 20 percent with ElBaradei at 12 percent..

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.