Corrupt, Black Liberal Democrat Jesse Jackson Jr. Resigns In Disgrace

They're all the same, from Marion Barry to Alcee Hastings to Charles Rangel to Kwame Kilpatrick to William Jefferson Jr. to Jesse Jackson Jr., elected and often re-elected by idiot black liberals and the end game always turns out like this:

U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Junior resigned from Congress effective Wednesday, citing the need to spend time "restoring my health."

Jackson, who announced his resignation in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, has been is the subject of several investigations and was recently treated at the Mayo Clinic for what was described as "several serious health issues."

"For 17 years I have given 100% of my time, energy, and life to public service," Jackson wrote. "However, over the past several months, as my health has deteriorated, my ability to serve the constituents of my district has continued to diminish. Against the recommendations of my doctors, I had hoped and tried to return to Washington and continue working on the issues that matter most to the people of the Second District. I know now that will not be possible."

Voters in his South Side Chicago district re-elected Jackson, 47, for a 10th two-year term this month, despite his legal and health troubles.

"The constituents of the Second District deserve a full-time legislator in Washington, something I cannot be for the foreseeable future," he wrote to Boehner. "My health issues and treatment regimen has been incompatible with service in the House of Representatives. Therefore, it is with great regret that I hereby resign as a member of the United States House of Representatives, effective today, in order to focus on restoring my health."

Jackson, the son of civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson, is the subject of investigations by the FBI and the House Ethics Committee involving possible financial improprieties.

His House colleagues are looking into allegations that he or one of his associates offered to raise money for then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in exchange for Jackson being appointed to the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama in 2008.

RELATED:  Jesse Jackson Jr. resigns from Congress, acknowledges federal probe

Study: MSNBC Is Pretty Much Pure Propaganda At This Point

Townhall.com:

The Obama campaign and cable "news" network MSNBC shared more than a mere slogan this presidential cycle.  Neither entity had a single negative thing to say about the incumbent president over the closing week of the campaign.  By definition, it was Team Obama's job to portray the president in a unflinchingly favorable light -- but what exactly is the NBC-owned channel's mission statement?  Fox News is often accused of being a little more than a right-wing spin machine, particularly during its opinion programming.  Fox's overall coverage of the campaign tilted heavily in favor of Mitt Romney during the home stretch, with some "fair and balanced" negative coverage of the Republican and positive reporting about the president sprinkled in for good measure.  MSNBC went the full Pravda.  Via Pew Research:

Not a single MSNBC story about Mitt Romney was positive -- not one.  Meanwhile, zero segments about the president were negative. Allahpundit reaches into the word bag and grabs an entirely appropriate description of Pew's data reflected graph above: "Indistinguishable from propaganda."  He also notes that the Benghazi controversy was in full swing over this time period, indicating that MSNBC couldn't find anything critical to say about the Obama administration, even regarding its disgraceful handling of a preventable terrorist attack that claimed the lives of four American diplomats.  As I reported yesterday, the MSNBC crew is now accusing critics on this front of engaging in "conspiracy" theorizing.  In short, the network has essentially given up trying to even pretend to anything other than a house organ of the professional left.  At what point are they no longer considered a news outlet?  I'll leave you with this chart from Pew, demonstrating that overall media coverage of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney moved in opposite directions in the week directly preceding the election.  Surprise:

What's more, Obama received substantially more coverage than Romney during this time frame (80 percent to 62 percent).  So the incumbent enjoyed increased and more positive coverage as voters finalized their decisions; his challenger was mentioned less, but when he was covered, those mentions were twice as likely to be negative than positive.  Whining about media bias is a useless enterprise for conservatives.  It's a fact of life that isn't going away any time soon.  Republican politicians should recognize this reality and plan accordingly.  But it's also preposterous for people to continue to claim that this bias doesn't exist.  Sure, improved polling and the Sandy photo-ops goosed Obama's numbers in the chart above, but that doesn't explain the sharp negative turn of the Romney coverage.  The media is generally populated by liberal Democrats who wanted Obama to win.  Whether it's deliberate or subconscious,  this mentality slants coverage.  The American people understand this more than ever -- which is why it's inaccurate to pin Romney's loss on slanted journalism.  It was a contributing factor, of course, but there were many bigger issues at play.  That said, a 2011 UCLA study has posited that media bias increases Democrats' popular vote total by eight to ten percentage points in any given election season.  That might sound extreme, but ask yourself this question:  If a Republican incumbent were facing roughly eight percent unemployment, and much higher "real" unemployment -- all while adding more than $5 trillion to the national debt and breaking virtually every major promise he'd made during his previous campaign, would this election have even been close?  Probably not.  He'd have long since been declared a failure, and the resulting coverage would have been a build-up to the coronation of his opponent.  Benghazi and its cover-up would have been a massive, eleventh-hour feeding frenzy; a final nail in the coffin.  But Democrats preside over a different media climate, so forward to four more year we go.

RELATED: Pew media study: Obama’s coverage improved dramatically in the final week of the race

Bill O’Reilly Tears Into Romney Critics: ‘Gifts’ Remark ‘Is A Stone-Cold Fact’

Mediaite.com:

On his show Monday night, Bill O’Reilly took on those criticizing Mitt Romney‘s remark about President Barack Obama winning the election based on the “gifts” he gave to key demographic groups. O’Reilly pointed to his own similar election night comments, and noted that there’s no reason for outrage because it’s simply the truth. 

Referring to Romney’s remark, made during a conference call with donors, O’Reilly said that’s basically what he himself said on election night. “It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing,” O’Reilly said that night. “It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.” 

And he, too, was criticized. But “that’s the truth,” he said, mentioning that 63 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year voted for Obama. “It is a stone-cold fact.” Those on the left “don’t want to consider the fact that entitlements buy votes,” O’Reilly said. 

But they’re not alone. Romney’s been getting heat from those on the right side of the spectrum as well. O’Reilly particularly pointed to George Will and Newt Gingrich. Romney’s failure is clear, he added: He couldn’t convince majority of Americans that he would look out for them. And what did lower-income Americans vote for? It’s not more debt, Middle East chaos, eight percent unemployment or government regulations. No, O’Reilly said, they “voted for the candidate who they thought was going to directly helm them financially.” Not every Obama voter, he noted, but many. 

RELATED: Jindal: Republicans need to stop saying ‘stupid things’

Obamacare Will Keep Unemployment High By Forcing Small Companies To Cut Their Workforce To Fewer Than 50 People

The shocking re-election of Barack Obama to POTUS will have dire consequences on the nation, especially small businesses nationwide. Of course, conservatives already knew this, but what with Barack Obama promising "free gifts" to those who vote for him along with voters who shouldn't be allowed to vote, voting for Obama strictly because he's half-black, Mitt Romney had little chance of being elected POTUS and turning over Obamacare as he had promised. So now with Obamacare as a given we as a nation will suffer for more 4 years (at least) and we have no one to blame but the powerful, white, social liberals who propped up Barack Obama to represent their corrupt agenda:

Shortly after Nov. 6, Zane Tankel, who runs 40 Applebee’s restaurants in the New York City area, announced that his company was freezing employment and would not build any new restaurants. President Obama’s re-election, Tankel explained, meant that ObamaCare was likely to be fully implemented, costing his company millions of dollars and significantly raising the cost of hiring a worker. 
 
Tankel’s statement prompted outrage and threats of a boycott, but he was far from alone. Already John Schnatter, CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, has announced that he would likely lay off some workers. Earlier, Schnatter said that ObamaCare would cost his business $5 billion to $8 billion annually, forcing him to increase the price of pizzas. 

Meanwhile, two other restaurant chains, Olive Garden and Red Lobster, are moving many of their employees from full- to part-time work in order to avoid the law’s mandate that anyone working more than 30 hours must have insurance. An owner of 40 Denny’s in Florida, meanwhile, says he’ll add a 5% surcharge to customer bills in 2014 to cover his increased costs.

While restaurants, with traditionally low profit margins and large numbers of low-skilled, low-wage workers, are exceptionally vulnerable to ObamaCare’s costs, other business are being hit too. For example, Boston Scientific has announced that it will now lay off up to 1,400 workers and shift some jobs to China.

And Dana Holdings, an auto-parts manufacturer with more than 25,000 employees, says it to is exploring ObamaCare-related layoffs.

These, and countless other employers across the country, are not doing an impression of Montgomery Burns. They are simply responding to economic reality.

Under ObamaCare, employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health insurance for all their workers, paying at least 65% of the cost of a family policy or 85% of the cost of an individual plan. 

Moreover, the insurance must meet the federal government’s requirements in terms of what benefits are included, meaning that many businesses that offer insurance to their workers today will have to change to new, more expensive plans.

ObamaCare’s rules make expansion expensive, particularly for the 500,000 US businesses that have fewer than 100 employees.

Suppose that a firm with 49 employees does not provide health benefits. Hiring one more worker will trigger the mandate. The company would now have to provide insurance coverage to all 50 workers or pay a tax penalty. 

In New York, the average employer contribution for employer-provided insurance plans, runs from $4,567 for an individual to $ 12,748 for a family. Many companies will likely choose to pay the penalty instead, which is still expensive — $2,000 per worker multiplied by the entire workforce, after subtracting the statutory exemption for the first 30 workers. For a 50-person company, then, the tax would be $40,000, or $2,000 times 20.

That might not seem like a lot, but for many small businesses that could be the difference between survival and failure.

Under the circumstances, how likely is the company to hire that 50th worker? Or, if a company already has 50 workers, isn’t the company likely to lay off one employee? Or cut hours and make some employees part time, thus getting under the 50 employee cap? Indeed, a study by Mercer found that 18% of companies were likely to do exactly that. It’s worth noting that in France, another country where numerous government regulations kick in at 50 workers, there are 1,500 companies with 48 employees and 1,600 with 49 employees, but just 660 with 50 and only 500 with 51.

 RELATED: Author Freedman: Obamacare Must Be Stopped at State Level

Politiks As Usual: In The News 11/19/12

Blame Affairs on Evolution of Sex Roles

San Francisco Eyes Public Nudity Ban

Ranchers, Farmers Brace for 'Death Tax' Impact

McCain Recommendation: Hand the Mideast Crisis from Obama to Bill Clinton

If God Doesn’t Judge Us, He’ll Have to Apologize to Sodom

Gallup: Americans Who Think We'll Be Worse Off in 4 Yrs Doubled in 4 Yrs

GMA Gleeful Over Tebow Criticism

Incoming Black Caucus Chair Accuses McCain of 'Sexism and Racism'

French Catholics March Against Same-Sex Marriage

Treasuries Plunge as Obama Says He Sees Fiscal Cliff Resolution

Rocket Fired at Tel Aviv, More Strikes in Gaza

Arizona Gun Store: If You Voted For Barack Obama, “Turn Around and Leave”