Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Saturday, January 17, 2026
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 1005)
Economy

jcpenny-closing-down

The news of JCPenney closing down 33 stores nationwide, costing roughly 2,000 people their jobs, is adding to retailer woes in an economy still struggling. The closings are part of a new turnaround plan that the company hopes will arrest a trend of losses.

The once-profitable giant department-store chain said late Wednesday the decision is projected to save an annual $65 million beginning in 2014. It wasn’t a cut-and-run decision, as JCPenney says they will be hit with $26 million in the fourth quarter and $17 million in future quarters to cover the cost of severance and other closing expenses.

“As we continue to progress toward long-term profitable growth, it is necessary to re-examine the financial performance of our store portfolio and adjust our national footprint accordingly,” Penney CEO Mike Ullman said in a statement.

JCPenney stock shares fell more than 2.5 percent to $6.83 in after-hours trade following the announcement. They have fallen more than 62 percent over the last 12 months.

The move comes nearly two months after the company reported a much deeper third-quarter loss on weaker-than-expected sales, and a December jobs report that showed the U.S. economy disappointingly created just 74,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate fell only because nearly 92 million Americans have given up on the American Dream, dropping out of the work force entirely.

J.C. Penney says their inventory left over in affected stores will be sold over the next few months, with the closings anticipated by early May.

It does, however, have plans to actually open a new store later this year in Brooklyn, N.Y.

jcpenney closing down

The news of JCPenney closing down 33

News, Politics

Obama

President Obama apparently finds Congress useless and unnecessary, kicking off his first cabinet meeting with a 2014 strategy to govern absent the Constitution.

“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need,” Obama said.

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone — And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance — to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

If Congress proves to be difficult or refuse to fall in line with the president’s demands, then he threatened that he will just issue executive orders. The president expressed that he is on a “mission” to “unify” all Americans — a well-used Marist justification to ignore restrictions on power — that his administration will have to take “responsibility.”

It has been argued that both presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had forwarded their agendas with executive orders.

The media erroneously made comparisons to the amount each president has issued, failing to mention that it is not how many executive orders you sign, but rather what executive orders they signed; and, whether or not they are within their constitutional right to do so.

This is the second debate within a two-day span of Obama over-reaching with his executive power. First, the case heard before the high court Monday surrounded the Supreme Court dealing with the provision in the Constitution allowing the president to make temporarily appointments without Senate confirmation, but it limits the power to only when the Senate is in recess.

Now, his declaration, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” underscores Obama’s dependance upon his claimed executive powers, because his inability to work with Congress does not allow him to overreach again.

The two major topics that Obama discussed during the 2013 State of the Union are slowly making their appearances immigration laws and higher minimum wage, hoping to pit the American people against each other just in time for the 2014 midterm elections.

 

 

 

President Obama apparently finds Congress useless and

Culture, Entertainment, News

bieber home raided

The Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department raided the Bieber home owned by the snotty little troublemaker while investigating whether or not the singer and his friends threw eggs at a neighbor’s house, causing $20,000  n damage to its façade.

The pop star-turned-arrogant punk could face jail time and even deportation back to Canada where he is from.

“California does not take vandalism lightly. If the damage is $400 or more, the person can be charged with a felony and the person can face anywhere between 1 to 3 years in jail, in addition to having to pay fines and penalties,” L.A.-based lawyer Anahita Sedaghatfar told FOX411.

In June 2013, the Bieber camp told GossipCop that he had no plans to change his citizenship status, though he seems to like American money quite a bit, but he may live to regret that decision.

“If [Bieber is] actually convicted of a felony that involves a state of mind of intentional or knowing, there’s a possibility that he could be deported,” said Mitchell Ignatoff, a criminal lawyer specializing in defense for immigrant.

Sedaghatfar also said, however, that the District Attorney’s office could go easy on Justin Bieber and fail to charge him with a felony for the egging.

“Of course, the D.A. has the option to nevertheless charge this as a misdemeanor, but even that can include jail time.”

It is unclear what the police found at the Bieber home on Tuesday, as they have been tight-lipped about the their findings during the execution of the search warrant. His friend Lil Za, whose real name is Xavier Smith, was arrested during the search for a felony narcotics charge. The Sherriff’s Dept. initially identified the drug found as cocaine, but they later said it needed to be tested to determine the exact substance.

“There’s a big leap from a search warrant being executed to being convicted of anything,” Ignatoff noted. “I would be very surprised [to see him be deported],” he said.

Obviously Smith takes the same temper tantrums as him little Bieber friend, because he damaged a phone in a jail booking cell and was charged with felony vandalism. He was released on $70,000 bail at about 8:15 p.m. on Tuesday.

Bieber has not responded to any requests for comments.

The Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department raided

News, World

iran

Iran declares victory against the United States with provocative words from several leaders and even within their militia.

President Hassan Rouhani declares that the nuclear agreement that was created in Geneva as his country’s victory — telling the masses, “Geneva deal means the surrender of big powers before the great nation of Iran.”

Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, a party leader in Iran’s parliament echoed the words of Major General Safavi stating that his country’s “power and resistance” has forced the United States and President Barack Obama to submit to Tehran.

Adel stated that Rouhani “persists in restoring Iran’s nuclear rights and may not give up even an iota of the Iranian nation’s right” despite his public rhetoric of reconciliation

Iranian’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei commented that Iran has strong-armed Obama into acceptance.

An Iranian military commander Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi stated, “The Americans have sensibly chosen a type of flexibility and withdrawal vis a vis Iran.”

The six-nation group, U.N. Security Council and Germany plus Iran agreed to start implementing the terms of the November deal this month — to cap its uranium enrichment in order to receive relief from economic sanctions.

It is disturbing when a country speaks provocatively towards the United States with words such as “victory,” “surrender,” “power and resistance” — raising questions on whether they will follow through with said agreements.

Safavi also stated that the United States “reached this conclusion that they can’t challenge the powerful Iran. It seems that the Americans have understood this fact that Iran is a powerful and stable country in the region which uses logical and wise methods in confrontation with its enemies.”

Why is a major continuing the narrative that Americans are their “enemies” if we are to work together?

Safavi states that Iran, “cannot forget the U.S. animosities throughout the last decades, including its support for the 2009 street unrests.”

Should the United States take a step back before they start relieving any economic sanctions?

The economic sanction so happens to be the only leverage that the United States and the West have in order to maintain some semblance of order within the Middle East. The idea that they can be easily put back in place if Iran breaks their side of the deal is preposterous.

 

Iran declares victory against the United States

News, Politics

WASHINGTON— Newly declassified Benghazi documents reveal Obama was told only that the attack in Libya was a terror attack, not a reaction to a video. The former head of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham, told the House Armed Services Committee that the White House situation room was alerted immediately after the attack.

“The attack started at 9:42. I don It see any mention here about a demonstration, just simply an attack. Do you know if there was some kind of demonstration before this attack?” asked Chairman Martha Roby (R-AL).

“I am not aware of one, sir. It became pretty apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly after this attack began, that this was an attack,” General Ham responded.

The House Armed Services Committee today released a series of declassified Benghazi documents detailing transcripts from briefings on the September 11, 2012 attack on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. The briefings were conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations then chaired by Rep. Martha Roby, with all members openly invited and present at testimony.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office to say, hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away. I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta,” Ham testified at the hearing. It was just about 10:00 PM ET.

That’s noteworthy, because Panetta testified to Congress that he spoke to President Obama in the 10 o’clock hour, which is after General Ham relayed the information regarding the attack, with no mention of a video being the spark behind some spontaneous demonstration.

The testimony given by General Ham does mention a video, but not as a factor behind the attack. In fact, an overly cynical view may be skeptical of whether or not Leon Panetta gave the president or his staff the idea of scapegoating a video for the Benghazi attack.

“My recollection, sir, is that there was — there was some discussion about it, but it was peripheral, frankly, to our conversation,” Ham said. It was on the “peripheral” because, there was clearly no demonstration prior to the attack, just the actual attack, which was coordinated by trained operatives.

The White House spokesman Jay Carney would tell reporters the week after the attack that President Obama promptly went to sleep just after speaking with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta before heading off to Nevada for a fundraiser the next morning.

The briefings, which took place over the course of several months, were part of the Committee’s examination of the actions of the military chain of command before, during, and after the attack. A report summarizing the conclusion of the HASC Oversight & Investigations majority Members draw from these briefings is expected to be released later this week.

WASHINGTON— Newly declassified Benghazi documents reveal Obama

US

We could think of no example can better to illustrate the liberal media bias in politics than comparing coverage of “Bridge Gate” with the IRS scandal. Don’t get us wrong, because any and all misuses of authority are disgraceful and unworthy of public office, but some are worse than others.

It is hardly worth mentioning that the mainstream media has ignored the infinite and severe Obama administration scandals that involved the woman they are planning a coronation for in 2016, while foaming at the mouth to tear down the man they know will deprive them of such an idol-worshipping event.

Nevertheless, aside from being anecdotal with our evidence, it is nice to see some actual numbers on the lop-sided, bias reporting from the so-called mainstream media. Fortunately, thanks to the Media Research Center, the work has been done for us:

In less than 48 hours, ABC, CBS and NBC deluged viewers with coverage of Chris Christie’s traffic jam scandal, devoting a staggering 88 minutes to the story. In comparison, these same news outlets over the last six months have allowed a scant two minutes for the latest on Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service scandal. The disparity in less than two days is 44-to-one. [See a chart below.]

MRC observed coverage between Wednesday through Friday morning, and found Bridge-Gate being the lead story on 11 out of 13 news shows. NBC, the company currently being sued for editing the George Zimmerman 911 call, took the prize, with over 34 minutes.

Although, it was pretty close, as CBS was only beat by NBC by just under 4 minutes, still dedicating more than 30 monotonous minutes. ABC was third with nearly 23 minutes. You would think that the story would go stale, and perhaps they would move on to something important — say, Obama appointing a donor to head up the investigation into the IRS targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups — but no.

It’s getting worse. An updated analysis by the MRC finds the disparity is growing by the day. Over the last six months, NBC covered the IRS targeting for five seconds — five seconds — while CBS covered the story for 41 seconds and ABC a whopping 22 seconds.

It isn’t as if the IRS scandal led nowhere as some liberals sadly contend. The mainstream media blatantly ignored the damning emails from Lois Lerner noting how Democrats were complaining that anonymous donors could be influencing Senate races. Here we have an IRS official actually doing the bidding of a political party, by identifying opponents and subsequently using the power of the federal government to attack political opposition.

The mainstream media responded: Nada.

Lois Lerner, by the way, responded to the concerns by writing how she hoped that the Federal Election Commission would “save the day.” Obviously, they did. Another partisan bureaucracy who should be defunded and demented, then replaced with someone practical and efficient.

Even when she was forced to resign, the media let her do so quietly, without reporters hounding or asking her for comments or defenses on the way out.

Most recently, House Republicans learned the Justice Department’s investigation into the IRS targeting Tea Party groups has been “compromised,” after the Obama administration outrageously appointed an Obama donor to head up the probe.

Nothing.

I wonder if Obama appointed a Christie donor to head up the Sandy relief investigation, then would the mainstream media find that unethical?

Probably not, because Obama appointed them.

What a bunch of pre-bought and paid-for dunces.

 

We could think of no example can

News, Policy

(Note: Hover over state to view latest ObamaCare enrollment numbers, including total private enrollment versus Medicaid. It is important to note that Medicaid/CHIP enrollment includes those who have been determined eligible.)

[show-map id=’6′]

The White House has been touting the latest ObamaCare enrollment numbers, but both a broad and state-by-state examination of new data suggests serious death spiral danger. Overall, putting aside the ratio of young vs. old for a moment, the map above shows the breakdown of selected Marketplace plans versus Medicaid enrollment.

The severity of the ratio is labeled by color, with deep red indicating states who report their latest ObamaCare enrollment numbers to be either upside-down or nearly total enrollment. Worth noting, not one state improved their ratio since the last analysis when HHS released number for mid-December, shifting their state to blue where the ratio is stable and in-line with projections.

Once again, as we can see in the table below, the totality of enrollments is far too lop-sided toward Medicaid, with the number of individuals selecting a plan including those who have not paid. The number of individuals who enrolled who are 18 – 34-years old represents just 24 percent of all of the latest ObamaCare enrollment numbers.

According to the CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, that number needs to increase to at least 40 percent. As PeoplesPunditDaily.com previously reported, Humana said it expects the risk pool to be disproportionately sicker, which the data confirms, further increasing cost far more than anticipated. Furthermore, insurers tell us that just 5 – 15 percent of those individuals who have selected a plan in either Marketplace have actually paid their first premium, as of the beginning of the new year.

[table id=9 /]

On the number of persons who have had a Medicaid/CHIP Determination or Assessment through the Marketplaces — which totaled an astounding 1.6 million, or nearly 75 percent of all persons who chose a plan — the latest ObamaCare enrollment numbers do not even include individuals who are applying through State Medicaid/CHIP agencies.

In essence, the number of new Medicaid enrollees is even larger than the government’s new numbers suggest on the surface.

By observing the amount of individuals who have selected Silver, Gold, and Platinum plans in the Marketplaces — totaling 80 percent of all plans selected — we know that some of our worst fears are being confirmed. The people who are expressing interest in the Marketplace plans are older, sicker Americans who need more generous coverage.

Bottom Line

While the Obama administration and the Democratic Party have their talking points down, repeatedly boasting the increased enrollment, they are still far behind their own projections and the specific data points are even worse. If the trend continues, cost will dramatically increase, state and federal budgets will explode, and the possibility of an insurance death spiral gets real — real quick.

Insurance companies, who have a bailout written into the law itself, have won out either way.

 

The White House has been touting the

News, Politics

obama-recess-appointments

Monday, the Supreme Court justices sounded deeply concerned over the 2012 Obama recess appointments, the general argument over President Obama’s recess appointment powers.

The case heard before the high court Monday, was the first of its kind to be argued in the Supreme Court dealing with the provision in the Constitution allowing the president to make temporarily appointments without Senate confirmation, but it limits the power to only when the Senate is in recess.

It was previously heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as two other appeals courts, who ruled the Obama recess appointments were gross overreach on the grounds the appointments were made while the Senate was in session.

The Supreme Court justices heard more than 90 minutes of oral arguments, and repeatedly posed skeptical questions to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who argued the court would essentially end that power in the Constitution if it found that those appointments were illegal.

Senate Republicans’ refusal to allow votes for nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau led Obama to make the temporary, or recess, appointments in January 2012.

The case a Washington state bottling company and a local Teamsters union, and of course, the NLRB sided with the Teamsters union. Though three federal appeals courts have upheld recess appointments made by other administrations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the board’s ruling, because they were made when the Senate was in recess.

In front of the justices were two broad questions and a narrower question.

The larger issue is whether the president can made recess appointments only during the once-a-year break between sessions of Congress and whether the vacancy must occur while the Senate is away in order to be filled during the same break.

Verrilli said that 14 presidents have temporarily appointed 600 civilians and thousands of military officers to vacancies when the Senate went into recess at any point, a practice that has been well understood by both presidents and lawmakers, arguing high court ruling that a recess only happens once a year would “dramatically upset that long-settled equilibrium,” Verrilli said.

Because President Obama refused to recognize the legal challenges to his appointments and ignored the entire inevitable argument, literally hundreds of NLRB rulings could be voided if the Supreme Court upholds the appeals court decision.

The narrower consideration before the court is whether brief — or, pro forma sessions of the Senate — which is held every few days to break up a longer Senate hiatus, can prevent the president from making recess appointments. That’s what occurred in the Senate during the time the Obama recess appointments were made.

Senate Republicans also are taking part in the case, support for company and Noel Canning. They argue, for starters, that the Senate was in recess, whether the time was brief or not is irrelevant. There is another dimension to their argument, as well.

“Who determines — the Senate, or the president — whether the Senate is in session? The Constitution’s text and structure point to only one answer: the Senate,” the Republicans arguing against the administration said in court papers.

The real danger for the Democrats and the administration with losing the case, would be that presidential nominees could be blocked when the president’s party does not control the Senate, which is the reason Harry Reid and the Democrats pulled the nuclear option. Perhaps, they foresaw the high court agreeing with the lower courts on the case.

But Verrilli said the Senate made clear in voting for the pro forma sessions that no business would be conducted and that, in essence, the Senate would be in recess. “The president took the Senate at its word. And rightly so,” he said.

At one point, Justice Samuel Alito stopped Verrilli and said, “it sounds to me you are making a very aggression argument in favor of expanding presidential power,” which was something neither conservative or liberal justices seemed comfortable allowing.

Monday, the Supreme Court justices sounded deeply

News, World

pope francis criticizes abortion

Jan. 13, 2014 – Pope Francis meets ambassadors to the Holy See, at the Vatican. Pope Francis criticized abortion as evidence of a “throwaway culture,” that wastes people as well as food, saying such a mentality is a threat to world peace. (AP)

VATICAN CITY –  For the first time since becoming head of the Catholic Church in Vatican City, Catholic advocates can now say Pope Francis criticizes abortion. On Monday, he criticized abortion as evidence of what he sees as a “the throwaway culture,” which wastes people and food alike. Both, Pope Francis says, is a threat to world peace.

“We cannot be indifferent to those suffering from hunger, especially children, when we think of how much food is wasted every day in many parts of the world immersed in what I have often termed `the throwaway culture,”‘ Francis said.

“For example, it is frightful even to think that there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day,” he said. Some have quietly criticized Pope Francis for being too light on criticisms of abortion, saying church teaching is well-known and understood by followers and non-followers.

In the past, he says that he doesn’t like to touch on moral teachings of the church, but he’d rather stay more about an approachable message.

Tossing out that more diplomatic approach, Francis called for us all to treat the elderly with more respect, deferring to their wisdom, and for children to be protected from exploitation, slavery and hunger.

Saying hunger is a threat to world peace, he noted that not only food but human beings themselves are often discarded as unnecessary.

Admonishing the persecution of Christians, he underscored how many have been forced to flee the Middle East for other places, adding “We must never cease to do good, even when it is difficult and demanding, and when we endure acts of intolerance if not genuine persecution,” he said.

The comments over persecution led into his call for more understanding toward migrants.

Italians are now faced with a current debate over whether or not to reform restrictive immigration policies, and Francis called for the Italian people to “renew their praiseworthy commitment of solidarity” toward migrants.

The statements made by Francis, particularly regarding abortion, represent a break from a general willingness to shy away from the issue. In the United States, the Supreme Court just refused to hear arguments over Arizona’s late-term abortion ban, which effectively upheld a previously decision by a federal judge striking down the law as unconstitutional.

 

For the first time since becoming head

US

arizona-abortion-ban

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the case regarding the Arizona abortion ban, blocking the state from enforcing a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, effectively striking down the majority supported state law.

The Supreme Court ruling is the latest blow for states that have tried to pass laws restricting abortion, within their Tenth Amendment boundaries and with the will of their people. A recent survey nationwide found the highest level of support for a waiting period in two years, with support for late-term abortion bans in the majority at all-time highs.

The high court declined to hear an appeal from Arizona, which essentially leaves in place a prior ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the law was unconstitutional.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the ban into law in April 2012, and 9 other states have enacted late-term abortion bans starting at 20 weeks or even earlier.

However, several of those bans had previously been placed on hold or struck down by other courts, with the latest Supreme Court decision sure to further embolden opponents of the laws.

In its ruling, the federal appeals court said the law violates a woman’s constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb. “Viability” of a fetus is generally considered to start at 24 weeks, despite a consensus among medical experts that babies at the 20-week mark have survived and feel pain.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said late-term abortion bans run contrary to Supreme Court rulings starting with the seminal Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, and supporters of the legislation said the law was meant to protect the mother’s health and prevent fetuses from feeling pain.

U.S. District Judge James Teilborg originally ruled it was constitutional, but the 9th Circuit stepped in and blocked the late-term abortion ban.

Lawyers representing Arizona argued that the ban wasn’t technically a law, but a mere medical regulation, as it still allowed for doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies.

Worth noting, the plaintiff in Roe. V. Wade now spends her time as an advocate for pro-life, telling stories about how she was used by the far left to further an agenda that had nothing to do with women’s rights, but rather an industry that sees billions of dollars in profits.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe