My goodness - Rush Limbaugh said does anyone wanted to watch Hillary grow old while in office as she is already old.
Now look whats going to happen to Bernie if he escapes reality and become president.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Bernie Grows Older In Office : What to Expect After 8 Years
My goodness - Rush Limbaugh said does anyone wanted to watch Hillary grow old while in office as she is already old.
Now look whats going to happen to Bernie if he escapes reality and become president.
Nelson Mandela Spent 27 Years in Jail Before Becoming President : Hillary?
Bill has ambitions as well, and they don't necessarily have that much to do with Hillary. He keeps his on the prize, that special island where the fun never ends.
Trump a Media Pied Piper Like McCain? - Trump Another "Maverick"?
Stop and give this some thought - remember how the press was all over McCain calling him a 'Maverick" because he was unlike the other Republicans, he want to cross the isle to get things done, and the press was elated. But as we all know the love ended when he was nominated, then the 'maverick' label was lost in the partisan attacks on everything from his pick for vice president, to his family and war record. Oh yeah, they questioned what he did as a prisoner of war.
Welcome to the real world of progressive socialist liberal democrat politics.
Trump And Or Sanders : Who Are These People?
Isn't this what the millions thought back in 2008 about "the One", Mr Objma, "the one we have been waiting for" and are those crowds making the same mistake they made in 2008 and in 2012 where many Republicans came on board as well?
It's a matter of trust. Do you trust Mr Trump to be able to deliver what he promises? So far he hasn't said how he will do anything of any substance.
What are voter suppose to think? How will voters be able to make a decision without adequate information on witch to base logical and commons sense decisions that are so important to the survival of our country?
Dreams That Never Will Come True : The Perp Walk
She is and most importantly a democrat and second she is a Clinton and thirdly she is a women. The AG Loretta Lynch will never allow her to be arrested. not ever, and either will Mr Objma and the other progressive socialist liberals democrats. She knows this and proceeds accordingly.
It's the nature of the beast. It's just who they are. Getting and keeping power by any means necessary. There are no limits to what they go to keep power. Without the power to control others, they are nothing. This is why they never quit the fight, never!
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Worthless College Degrees : The Facts Are Scary
If you ever wonder how worthless many college degrees are, wonder no longer. And worse the debt that one generates to get that worthless degree drags you down for decades.Gas Station Brawl : Passions Run High (Video)
Okay, this is a day when we all need to take a break from the insanity of the electoral process and the Washington criminals that are attacking us, and watch this video where a Detroit family decides to express their displeasure with each other at a public gas station.
Warning, this is a little off color as one of the participants becomes disrobed in the melee. Still it does show how things can get out of hand when passions become the rule.
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=ftr&.rand=1jvsm5gjf8lfk#
Warning, this is a little off color as one of the participants becomes disrobed in the melee. Still it does show how things can get out of hand when passions become the rule.
https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=ftr&.rand=1jvsm5gjf8lfk#
Friday, January 29, 2016
Hillary Skates on Emails? That Risked National Security : History Repeats Itself
Hillary knows the politics of corruption better then anyone. She has all the confidence necessary in our system of justice to breath easy.
After all she is a Clinton and that means they are above the law. When looking back on her history, it is incredible what she and Bill have gotten away with.
So the conventional wisdom is she will skate on the emails, Benghazi and the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, the law and our national security be dammed.
Chinese Sick Leave Solution : Following Orders (Humor)
Senator Oulines Energy plans : Senate Bill Is Common Sense
Some good news and some bad but it appears the good news is more numerous then the bad given Mr Objam's attack on fossil energy of all kinds. Hope springs eternal that our politicians will do the right thing and actually consider the needs of the country as a whole instead of just how a deal will benefit them personally.
If the is one thing that most of us in the trenches can agree on as a good thing, kinda, after more then 7 years of hateful attacks on our country from the progressive socialist liberal damocrats and Mr Objma's ideology of "fundamental change", is we all now believe Mr Objma and his friends have decided that the people, especially those in the trenches, are enemies of the state, and must be brought under their control or all their efforts to destroy the American culture as we know it today will be lost.
Is there any good reason to vote for more damocrats? I can't think of any.
Murkowski Outlines Senate Energy Plan
By Brian Williams
In the GOP weekly address, Sen. Murkowski describes the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which includes liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Looks like it is still on the Senate calendar this week…although it may slip.
On LNG exports, the bill requires the Energy Secretary to approve or disapprove LNG export applications within 45 days, so the applications don’t linger. That’s for nations that don’t already have free trade agreements with us, since most free trade agreements already address expedited LNG exports. It also puts federal energy regulatory commission (FERC) in control of all federal LNG authorizations.
The bill authorizes a new “e-prize” competition, which is basically an x-prize for energy. I’m seeing more and more of these x-prizes in public policy. The section on nuclear power misses the opportunity to promote molten salt reactors, a nice byproduct of a robust rare earth element policy…but it does call for more nuclear reactor fusion and fission reactor prototypes, so that might encompass molten salt even if it isn’t listed specifically.
There are a ton of repeals and program eliminations, which is a good sign of conservative legislation.
If the is one thing that most of us in the trenches can agree on as a good thing, kinda, after more then 7 years of hateful attacks on our country from the progressive socialist liberal damocrats and Mr Objma's ideology of "fundamental change", is we all now believe Mr Objma and his friends have decided that the people, especially those in the trenches, are enemies of the state, and must be brought under their control or all their efforts to destroy the American culture as we know it today will be lost.
Is there any good reason to vote for more damocrats? I can't think of any.
Murkowski Outlines Senate Energy Plan
By Brian Williams
In the GOP weekly address, Sen. Murkowski describes the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which includes liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Looks like it is still on the Senate calendar this week…although it may slip.
On LNG exports, the bill requires the Energy Secretary to approve or disapprove LNG export applications within 45 days, so the applications don’t linger. That’s for nations that don’t already have free trade agreements with us, since most free trade agreements already address expedited LNG exports. It also puts federal energy regulatory commission (FERC) in control of all federal LNG authorizations.
The bill authorizes a new “e-prize” competition, which is basically an x-prize for energy. I’m seeing more and more of these x-prizes in public policy. The section on nuclear power misses the opportunity to promote molten salt reactors, a nice byproduct of a robust rare earth element policy…but it does call for more nuclear reactor fusion and fission reactor prototypes, so that might encompass molten salt even if it isn’t listed specifically.
There are a ton of repeals and program eliminations, which is a good sign of conservative legislation.
- Repeal of the methanol study.
- Repeal of the weatherization study.
- Repeal of various DOE programs.
Bernie Sanders Health Care Plan : Workers/Taxpayers Destroyed
What remains after seeing the turn out at a Bernie Sanders rally is, who are these people and where do the live? They can't be from around here and if they are citizens of this country, then we can assume the country as a representative republic is finished.
To try and understand what is happening at these rallies for Bernie and his ideas that are not just socialist in nature, but can be seen as neo-communist, totally control of production of goods and services by decree and mandate, not the force of arms, one begins to feel faint and disorientated.
The mind of ordinary individuals who watch this gathering begs denial of a reality that most ordinary people rely on for survival. Bernie and Bernie's people have no such problem, they are fixed on the prize of a responsibility free life and the lack of common sense or reality is not part of the equation.
Col. “Bernie” Sanders Half-Baked Recipe for Health Plan
Devon Herrick | Jan 25, 2016
Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders rolled out his proposal for a single-payer health system, similar to Canada’s and -- to a lesser degree -- Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal is a fairytale of wishful thinking and Robin Hood dreams. Whereas the other Col. Sanders is famous for a secret recipe with 14 herbs and spices, Bernie Sanders has only one not-so-secret ingredient -- socialism.
Sanders proposal is built on the premise that most people can have something for nothing. Workers would pay a 2.2 percent payroll tax on wages, while employers would have 6.2 percent tax on employees’ wages. This is a rather disingenuous way of making workers think they’re getting off cheap. Labor economist (and anybody with common sense) understands that anything that makes workers more costly to employ effects their take home pay. Stated more accurately, Sanders plan would tax wages at a rate of 8.4 percent (2.2 percent + 6.2 percent) that would reduce workers’ take home pay by, say, around 8.4 percent.
Presumably, this is on top of the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax. That works out to an 11.3 percent payroll tax for health care. Add in Social Security taxes (12.4 percent) and the first one-quarter of each worker’s wages are syphoned off and flushed down a Ponzi scheme drain. It would also require additional income taxes to pay for a huge increase in government spending. Marginal tax rates on higher-income households would range from 37 percent to 52 percent.
Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. His home state has already explored implementing a single-payer system. The idea was officially abandoned in 2015 as being far too expensive for taxpayers. One thing that sank the Vermont initiative was that activists supporting single-payer couldn’t fathom a health plan that required any cost-sharing. The actuarial value of the Vermont proposal was 94 percent! Faced with little cost-sharing, every trip to the doctors’ office would be an experiment in how many billable services could be crammed into any given appointment. Obamacare plans in the exchange are either platinum, gold, silver or bronze. In terms of actuarial value the backers wanted Vermont residents to have gold-plated platinum plans encrusted with diamonds!
(The full article - http://townhall.com/columnists/devonherrick/2016/01/25/col-bernie-sanders-halfbaked-recipe-for-health-plan-n2109576/page/full)
To try and understand what is happening at these rallies for Bernie and his ideas that are not just socialist in nature, but can be seen as neo-communist, totally control of production of goods and services by decree and mandate, not the force of arms, one begins to feel faint and disorientated.
The mind of ordinary individuals who watch this gathering begs denial of a reality that most ordinary people rely on for survival. Bernie and Bernie's people have no such problem, they are fixed on the prize of a responsibility free life and the lack of common sense or reality is not part of the equation.
Col. “Bernie” Sanders Half-Baked Recipe for Health Plan
Devon Herrick | Jan 25, 2016
Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders rolled out his proposal for a single-payer health system, similar to Canada’s and -- to a lesser degree -- Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal is a fairytale of wishful thinking and Robin Hood dreams. Whereas the other Col. Sanders is famous for a secret recipe with 14 herbs and spices, Bernie Sanders has only one not-so-secret ingredient -- socialism.
Sanders proposal is built on the premise that most people can have something for nothing. Workers would pay a 2.2 percent payroll tax on wages, while employers would have 6.2 percent tax on employees’ wages. This is a rather disingenuous way of making workers think they’re getting off cheap. Labor economist (and anybody with common sense) understands that anything that makes workers more costly to employ effects their take home pay. Stated more accurately, Sanders plan would tax wages at a rate of 8.4 percent (2.2 percent + 6.2 percent) that would reduce workers’ take home pay by, say, around 8.4 percent.
Presumably, this is on top of the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax. That works out to an 11.3 percent payroll tax for health care. Add in Social Security taxes (12.4 percent) and the first one-quarter of each worker’s wages are syphoned off and flushed down a Ponzi scheme drain. It would also require additional income taxes to pay for a huge increase in government spending. Marginal tax rates on higher-income households would range from 37 percent to 52 percent.
Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. His home state has already explored implementing a single-payer system. The idea was officially abandoned in 2015 as being far too expensive for taxpayers. One thing that sank the Vermont initiative was that activists supporting single-payer couldn’t fathom a health plan that required any cost-sharing. The actuarial value of the Vermont proposal was 94 percent! Faced with little cost-sharing, every trip to the doctors’ office would be an experiment in how many billable services could be crammed into any given appointment. Obamacare plans in the exchange are either platinum, gold, silver or bronze. In terms of actuarial value the backers wanted Vermont residents to have gold-plated platinum plans encrusted with diamonds!
(The full article - http://townhall.com/columnists/devonherrick/2016/01/25/col-bernie-sanders-halfbaked-recipe-for-health-plan-n2109576/page/full)
The God of Government Is Too Small : People Are Lead by Example
And here is the truth : The god of government will never be big enough to satisfy the needs of the people, only a God that is prepared to lead the people by example, not by mandate.
ObjmaCare's Lagacy of Mandated Debt : Politicians Strike A Pose
Sigh - I wonder who in congress believes that adding more unfunded liabilities to the real deficit and debt is going to be okay with the denigration of future living standards when everyone finally becomes aware the bill has come due?
The story then will be, 'where are they now' that voted for a kick the can down the road agenda, but unfortunately even then the debate will only more of the same, 'not my fault. Instead of knowingly see the problem and doing something about it right now to save the country from financial ruin, politicians take the money and run, as usual.
What ever happened to love of country and pride in doing the right thing, standing on principle no matter the consequences? Have we fallen so far that no matter the situation we can't bring ourselves out of our small cocoon of keeping our heads down, intently gazing at our smart phones trying to escape the reality of understand we are in trouble and we have to do something about it right now?
No rocket science here, all that's required is staying awake and common sense.
Obamacare Joins Pile of Unfunded Liabilities
By John R. Graham
The congressional vote last month to fund the government through next September, while extending some special-interest tax breaks and introducing some new ones, was the first time a majority of Republicans voted in favor of Obamacare. It looks like Congress’ alternative to Obamacare is deficit-financed Obamacare.
While failing to cut one penny of Obamacare spending, the so-called “taxibus” (tax extenders plus omnibus spending) cut almost $40 billion in Obamacare tax revenue by “temporarily” delaying three taxes for a year or two: the medical device excise tax, the health insurance fee and the excise tax on high-cost employer benefit plans. Make no mistake: all three taxes are harmful and should be eliminated. However, just kicking them down the road without making any effort to cut Obamacare spending does nothing to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
A two-year moratorium on the 2.3 percent medical-device excise tax will reduce revenue by almost $4 billion but, when activated, the tax will increase health care costs and divert money to the government from job creation and research-and-development. Further, the tax discriminates against one industry. The pharmaceutical industry has an Obamacare excise tax, too. However, the industry accepted it in exchange for freedom from government price controls.
When Hillary Clinton talks about controlling pharmaceutical prices, she’s proposing to renege on that agreement. Congress’s one-year moratorium on the fee on all employer-based health insurance will reduce tax revenue by about $12 billion. However, this money was designed to go right back to health insurers as credits, which reduce net premiums paid by individuals in Obamacare’s exchanges. Delaying this fee earned praise from employer groups. Nevertheless, now that insurers are guaranteed Obamacare-exchange credits, while getting relief from employers’ complaints about the excise tax, there is no special interest to lobby to fix the broken Obamacare exchanges, in which 10 million people are trapped in policies with increasing costs and reduced care.
The excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health plans is a little different from the other taxes. Delaying it a couple of years will reduce tax revenue by about $20 billion. Although a bad tax, it tries to solve a real problem. Pre-Obamacare, no matter how much firms spent on employees’ health benefits, the value was excluded from their taxable income. This led to over-insurance, artificially high health care spending and higher income tax rates. Many proposed replacements for Obamacare would limit that open-ended exclusion with a standard deduction. The Cadillac tax should not be punted without some effort at such a reform. Usually, a Congress that claims to be fiscally responsible compromises on an appropriations bill to win a big-spending president’s approval. Not this time: Congress had to fight the president to win deficit funding for Obamacare. Originally these taxes were loaded onto Obamacare to paint a veneer of budget neutrality, and President Obama wants to maintain that appearance.
It is the current Congress, not the president, that prefers to sugar-coat Obamacare with deficit spending. Congress made not the slightest effort to match these tax delays with reduced spending. It could have. For example, repealing the individual mandate would reduce the deficit because many fewer people would buy coverage largely financed by credits paid to insurers in Obamacare exchanges. That would save Uncle Sam big bucks.
People who fantasize that these tax cuts alone are a down payment toward replacing Obamacare should be more mindful of how other deficit-funded entitlements have grown despite politicians’ perpetual promises of reform. Obamacare now joins Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on this growing pile of unfunded liabilities.
The story then will be, 'where are they now' that voted for a kick the can down the road agenda, but unfortunately even then the debate will only more of the same, 'not my fault. Instead of knowingly see the problem and doing something about it right now to save the country from financial ruin, politicians take the money and run, as usual.
What ever happened to love of country and pride in doing the right thing, standing on principle no matter the consequences? Have we fallen so far that no matter the situation we can't bring ourselves out of our small cocoon of keeping our heads down, intently gazing at our smart phones trying to escape the reality of understand we are in trouble and we have to do something about it right now?
No rocket science here, all that's required is staying awake and common sense.
Obamacare Joins Pile of Unfunded Liabilities
By John R. Graham
The congressional vote last month to fund the government through next September, while extending some special-interest tax breaks and introducing some new ones, was the first time a majority of Republicans voted in favor of Obamacare. It looks like Congress’ alternative to Obamacare is deficit-financed Obamacare.
While failing to cut one penny of Obamacare spending, the so-called “taxibus” (tax extenders plus omnibus spending) cut almost $40 billion in Obamacare tax revenue by “temporarily” delaying three taxes for a year or two: the medical device excise tax, the health insurance fee and the excise tax on high-cost employer benefit plans. Make no mistake: all three taxes are harmful and should be eliminated. However, just kicking them down the road without making any effort to cut Obamacare spending does nothing to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
A two-year moratorium on the 2.3 percent medical-device excise tax will reduce revenue by almost $4 billion but, when activated, the tax will increase health care costs and divert money to the government from job creation and research-and-development. Further, the tax discriminates against one industry. The pharmaceutical industry has an Obamacare excise tax, too. However, the industry accepted it in exchange for freedom from government price controls.
When Hillary Clinton talks about controlling pharmaceutical prices, she’s proposing to renege on that agreement. Congress’s one-year moratorium on the fee on all employer-based health insurance will reduce tax revenue by about $12 billion. However, this money was designed to go right back to health insurers as credits, which reduce net premiums paid by individuals in Obamacare’s exchanges. Delaying this fee earned praise from employer groups. Nevertheless, now that insurers are guaranteed Obamacare-exchange credits, while getting relief from employers’ complaints about the excise tax, there is no special interest to lobby to fix the broken Obamacare exchanges, in which 10 million people are trapped in policies with increasing costs and reduced care.
The excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health plans is a little different from the other taxes. Delaying it a couple of years will reduce tax revenue by about $20 billion. Although a bad tax, it tries to solve a real problem. Pre-Obamacare, no matter how much firms spent on employees’ health benefits, the value was excluded from their taxable income. This led to over-insurance, artificially high health care spending and higher income tax rates. Many proposed replacements for Obamacare would limit that open-ended exclusion with a standard deduction. The Cadillac tax should not be punted without some effort at such a reform. Usually, a Congress that claims to be fiscally responsible compromises on an appropriations bill to win a big-spending president’s approval. Not this time: Congress had to fight the president to win deficit funding for Obamacare. Originally these taxes were loaded onto Obamacare to paint a veneer of budget neutrality, and President Obama wants to maintain that appearance.
It is the current Congress, not the president, that prefers to sugar-coat Obamacare with deficit spending. Congress made not the slightest effort to match these tax delays with reduced spending. It could have. For example, repealing the individual mandate would reduce the deficit because many fewer people would buy coverage largely financed by credits paid to insurers in Obamacare exchanges. That would save Uncle Sam big bucks.
People who fantasize that these tax cuts alone are a down payment toward replacing Obamacare should be more mindful of how other deficit-funded entitlements have grown despite politicians’ perpetual promises of reform. Obamacare now joins Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security on this growing pile of unfunded liabilities.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
No War On Women : Women Ready for Hillary
Celebrating Decades of School Choice : Innovation for Success
As a result of the public school system unwilling and unable to make the necessary changes to their programs to provide a workable educational programs, the new alternative educational systems will cause further stress on the public systems to a point where public education will have no function in the public arena.
And where with most of the pressure come from to innovate of die, the taxpayers.
What School Choice Advocates Have to Celebrate
Lindsey Burke / @lindseymburke
National School Choice Week has just kicked-off, and there is much to celebrate this year. National School Choice Week will feature over 16,000 events across the country this week, ranging from school pep rallies in support of school choice, to policy panels exploring the many school choice options that are now available to families.
Over the past two decades, choice in education has seen dramatic gains. From the nation’s first school voucher program in Milwaukee, Wisc. in 1991 (although Vermont and Maine have had proto school choice options via “town tuitioning” programs since 1869 and 1873, respectively, allowing children to enroll in public or private schools outside of their neighborhood if there is no public school to attend) to the more than 56 private school choice options that operate in 28 states and Washington, D.C. today, school choice has been on the march.
Over the past decade alone, from 2004 to 2014, the number of children exercising private school choice has increased by over 257,000, more than tripling to over 350,000 total students. And in 2011, Arizona broke new ground by becoming the first state to offer education savings accounts (ESAs) to eligible families. Education savings accounts enable families to have a proportion (90 percent in the case of Arizona) of the money that would have been spent on their child in their public school deposited instead into a parent-controlled savings account.
Families can then use those funds to pay for private school tuition, online learning, special education services and therapies, individual courses at their local public school or charter school, and private tutoring, among other things. Families can even roll over unused funds from year to year, and can roll funds into a college savings account. Five states now have education savings accounts in place, including Nevada, which in 2015 became the first state to enact a near-universal option.
Creating school choice options in the states has been a welcome change for families. A growing body of empirical evidence suggests school choice can significantly improve academic attainment outcomes for participants, and can have positive impacts on academic achievement. School choice also confers positive benefits to the public school system, which responds to the competitive pressure placed on it by surrounding private schooling options.
In a meta-analysis of the existing school choice literature, researcher Greg Forster found that to date, 12 empirical analyses employing random assignment methodology have examined the impact of school choice on the academic outcomes of participating children. Of the 12 studies, 11 found that school choice improved academic outcomes, with one study found no impact. In addition to the positive impacts on academic outcomes, Forster also found that 23 evaluations of the impact of school choice on public schools have been conducted to date, using a mix of methodologies.
Twenty-two of the 23 studies found that choice improved educational outcomes for students in the public schools that faced competition because of school choice policies, while one study was unable to detect any impact. In addition to the positive impacts of choice on educational outcomes and public school performance, researchers have conducted six empirical evaluations of the fiscal cost of school choice, all finding school choice creates savings for taxpayers.
As National School Choice Week kicks-off, here’s hoping 2016 will be the best year yet for choice in education. Several states are currently considering options such as tuition tax credit scholarships and education savings accounts, meaning its likely that by this time next year, thousands of additional families could be experiences the benefits of educational choice, enabling them to craft learning options that are as unique as their individual children.
And where with most of the pressure come from to innovate of die, the taxpayers.
What School Choice Advocates Have to Celebrate
Lindsey Burke / @lindseymburke
National School Choice Week has just kicked-off, and there is much to celebrate this year. National School Choice Week will feature over 16,000 events across the country this week, ranging from school pep rallies in support of school choice, to policy panels exploring the many school choice options that are now available to families.
Over the past two decades, choice in education has seen dramatic gains. From the nation’s first school voucher program in Milwaukee, Wisc. in 1991 (although Vermont and Maine have had proto school choice options via “town tuitioning” programs since 1869 and 1873, respectively, allowing children to enroll in public or private schools outside of their neighborhood if there is no public school to attend) to the more than 56 private school choice options that operate in 28 states and Washington, D.C. today, school choice has been on the march.
Over the past decade alone, from 2004 to 2014, the number of children exercising private school choice has increased by over 257,000, more than tripling to over 350,000 total students. And in 2011, Arizona broke new ground by becoming the first state to offer education savings accounts (ESAs) to eligible families. Education savings accounts enable families to have a proportion (90 percent in the case of Arizona) of the money that would have been spent on their child in their public school deposited instead into a parent-controlled savings account.
Families can then use those funds to pay for private school tuition, online learning, special education services and therapies, individual courses at their local public school or charter school, and private tutoring, among other things. Families can even roll over unused funds from year to year, and can roll funds into a college savings account. Five states now have education savings accounts in place, including Nevada, which in 2015 became the first state to enact a near-universal option.
Creating school choice options in the states has been a welcome change for families. A growing body of empirical evidence suggests school choice can significantly improve academic attainment outcomes for participants, and can have positive impacts on academic achievement. School choice also confers positive benefits to the public school system, which responds to the competitive pressure placed on it by surrounding private schooling options.
In a meta-analysis of the existing school choice literature, researcher Greg Forster found that to date, 12 empirical analyses employing random assignment methodology have examined the impact of school choice on the academic outcomes of participating children. Of the 12 studies, 11 found that school choice improved academic outcomes, with one study found no impact. In addition to the positive impacts on academic outcomes, Forster also found that 23 evaluations of the impact of school choice on public schools have been conducted to date, using a mix of methodologies.
Twenty-two of the 23 studies found that choice improved educational outcomes for students in the public schools that faced competition because of school choice policies, while one study was unable to detect any impact. In addition to the positive impacts of choice on educational outcomes and public school performance, researchers have conducted six empirical evaluations of the fiscal cost of school choice, all finding school choice creates savings for taxpayers.
As National School Choice Week kicks-off, here’s hoping 2016 will be the best year yet for choice in education. Several states are currently considering options such as tuition tax credit scholarships and education savings accounts, meaning its likely that by this time next year, thousands of additional families could be experiences the benefits of educational choice, enabling them to craft learning options that are as unique as their individual children.
Mr Objma Believes Religious Freedom A Threat to His Ideolgy
Mr Objma's ideology is based on destroying freedom's basic foundations as stated on our Constitution to peruse a person individual's right to happiness and their Constitutional right to own property. And as long as an individual can hold the right to believe in a God that is larger then himself, he becomes a threat to those that believe their god of government will be diminished and therefore must be destroyed.
Make no mistake, anyone that can sit the pew of a church for twenty years where the preacher believes this country is prejudiced and hateful, that person is not a Christian. And why does Mr Objma side with Iran against Israel? Further, why does Mr Objma have no problem deporting hundreds of Christians that are here illegally, but fights to stop any deportation of Muslims that are here illegally? And why is so intent on bring a hundred thousand Muslim refugee here from Syria, Iraq and northern Africa, many without paper work and or visas???
How come? Why? What is his intent? Exactly who is Mr Objma? Nobody knows for sure.
Obama’s Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom
Melody Wood / @melodywwood
President Barack Obama’s 2016 proclamation for Religious Freedom Day, which was celebrated Jan. 16, rightly stated that religious freedom has long been considered one of America’s “most cherished ideals.” He wrote:
Yet some of the greatest threats to religious freedom in America in recent years have come from policies he supports. The Obamacare contraceptive mandate, for example, has resulted in government persecution of an order of religious sisters. Their case will be heard at the Supreme Court this spring.
The Obamacare mandate targets the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious organizations who object to their employee health care plans being hijacked by the government to cover Plan B, ella, and other abortion-inducing drugs and devices, contraception, and sterilization. The Little Sisters of the Poor seek to continue their mission of serving the elderly poor while operating in accordance with their religious beliefs without fear of incurring government penalties.
With the Obamacare requirement in place, they face millions in government fines for doing so.
In ruling on the Little Sisters of the Poor case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to reaffirm the foundational right to religious freedom. Religious sisters—and all Americans—should be free to live and act in accord with their religious convictions.
Another recent threat to religious freedom comes with the spread of proposed sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws, on the state and federal levels. The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson writes:
One of the best ways the federal government could ensure continued religious freedom in our nation would be to pass the First Amendment Defense Act. This act preserves religious freedom for those who dissent from the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and ensures that all Americans will have the ability to continue living out their deeply held religious and moral beliefs.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right, a right America has a proud tradition of respecting. Let’s make sure that tradition continues.
Make no mistake, anyone that can sit the pew of a church for twenty years where the preacher believes this country is prejudiced and hateful, that person is not a Christian. And why does Mr Objma side with Iran against Israel? Further, why does Mr Objma have no problem deporting hundreds of Christians that are here illegally, but fights to stop any deportation of Muslims that are here illegally? And why is so intent on bring a hundred thousand Muslim refugee here from Syria, Iraq and northern Africa, many without paper work and or visas???
How come? Why? What is his intent? Exactly who is Mr Objma? Nobody knows for sure.
Obama’s Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom
Melody Wood / @melodywwood
President Barack Obama’s 2016 proclamation for Religious Freedom Day, which was celebrated Jan. 16, rightly stated that religious freedom has long been considered one of America’s “most cherished ideals.” He wrote:
The United States stands for the protection of equal rights for all people to practice their faith freely, without fear or coercion, and as Americans, we understand that when people of all religions are accepted and are full and equal members of our society, we are all stronger and freer.Obama is correct. All Americans should be able to be free to live out their religious principles.
Yet some of the greatest threats to religious freedom in America in recent years have come from policies he supports. The Obamacare contraceptive mandate, for example, has resulted in government persecution of an order of religious sisters. Their case will be heard at the Supreme Court this spring.
The Obamacare mandate targets the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious organizations who object to their employee health care plans being hijacked by the government to cover Plan B, ella, and other abortion-inducing drugs and devices, contraception, and sterilization. The Little Sisters of the Poor seek to continue their mission of serving the elderly poor while operating in accordance with their religious beliefs without fear of incurring government penalties.
With the Obamacare requirement in place, they face millions in government fines for doing so.
In ruling on the Little Sisters of the Poor case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to reaffirm the foundational right to religious freedom. Religious sisters—and all Americans—should be free to live and act in accord with their religious convictions.
Another recent threat to religious freedom comes with the spread of proposed sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws, on the state and federal levels. The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson writes:
[Sexual orientation and gender identity] laws threaten the freedom of citizens, individually and in associations, to affirm their religious or moral convictions—convictions such as that marriage is the union of one man and one woman or that maleness and femaleness are objective biological realities to be valued and affirmed, not rejected or altered. Under SOGI laws, acting on these beliefs in a commercial or educational context could be actionable discrimination.These unnecessary laws threaten religious freedom—some of them offer no religious protections at all. For example, the proposed “Equality Act”—which was endorsed by Obama himself—“contains no protections for religious belief or conduct.”
One of the best ways the federal government could ensure continued religious freedom in our nation would be to pass the First Amendment Defense Act. This act preserves religious freedom for those who dissent from the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and ensures that all Americans will have the ability to continue living out their deeply held religious and moral beliefs.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right, a right America has a proud tradition of respecting. Let’s make sure that tradition continues.
Objma Nominee Blocked : GOP Senator Stands Against Prejudice & Bias
It for reasons like those stated here by Sen Perdue who believes prejudiced and biased judges have no place in the justice system he is demonized. But the current environment of progressive socialist liberals at all levels of government it is accepted as normal for a judge to take the side of those that break the law, especially if those braking the law support the judges agenda, and make them straw men to pursue their personal ideology and agenda to establish bench marks and precedents for future situations that can be pointed to as allowing criminals to live and work without regard for the law in this country.
As expected, the progressive socialists are up in arms saying this senator hates humanity and in particular the poor and disadvantaged that just happen to here illegally. This is about politics of power and control. And to make it work to the progressives advantage at every level of power must be in the hands of people that believe ideology must win over the substance of law.
Senator Sinks Obama Court Nominee Over ‘Uncomfortable’ Views on Illegal Immigration
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann
A U.S. senator has scuttled President Barack Obama’s nomination of a pro-amnesty judge from his home state of Georgia in the latest skirmish over judicial nominees.
Citing Judge Dax Lopez’s work with an organization supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., last week torpedoed Obama’s nominee to the U.S. District Court for Georgia.
In a press release, Perdue said he became “uncomfortable” with Lopez’s affiliation with the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials—an organization that the judge described “as very near and dear to my heart.”
Perdue blocked the Georgian’s nomination by withholding his “blue slip.” Under this longstanding Senate tradition, a senator effectively can veto a judicial nominee from his home state simply by refusing to recommend that person to the Judiciary Committee.
For 11 years, from 2004 to 2015, Lopez sat as a voting member on the board of directors of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials. He held the position while serving as a judge on the State Court of DeKalb County beginning in 2010. During his time on the board, the organization of Latino politicians supported Obama’s executive actions to allow millions of illegal immigrants to stay and work in America without being deported. The president’s widely criticized actions currently face a challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the Georgia group regularly weighed in on local controversies.
In 2008, the Latino officials filed a joint lawsuit against the Georgia secretary of state, arguing that state law requiring voters to show identification at the polls unfairly burdened Hispanics. Last year, shortly before Lopez stepped down from the board, the organization commended a local sheriff’s department for refusing to comply with deportation orders from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. In a press release, the group urged “other jurisdictions in the state to adopt similar policies.”
Perdue also voiced concern with “public comments” made by Lopez after he became a state judge. The senator did not specify the remarks he found troubling. In a 2012 radio interview, however, the DeKalb County judge outlined steps that illegal immigrants, when detained, could take to avoid deportation. In addition to the advice, Lopez noted:
In an open letter in August, Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren wrote that Lopez’s association with the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials suggested “a prejudice towards law-abiding citizens and law enforcement.”
But after Perdue blocked the nomination, liberal organizations opened a hailstorm of criticism in which they spotlighted Lopez’s Hispanic heritage. The Hispanic National Bar Association dismissed concerns over Lopez’s association with the organization of Latino politicians. In a statement, association President Robert Maldonado wrote:
Perdue’s veto of Lopez comes as conversations continue among Senate Republicans about blocking all of Obama’s judicial nominees. Some advocate freezing out all future nominees. Others argue that the nomination process already has become too political. As a freshman senator who sits on the Judiciary Committee, Perdue has demonstrated a willingness to slow down the nomination process in certain circumstances. Last year, he opposed the confirmation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Also last week, Perdue voted against confirming Judge Wilhelmina Wright for District Court of Minnesota after it came to light that she had written a law review paper characterizing President Reagan as a bigot. Wright won confirmation, 58-36.
As expected, the progressive socialists are up in arms saying this senator hates humanity and in particular the poor and disadvantaged that just happen to here illegally. This is about politics of power and control. And to make it work to the progressives advantage at every level of power must be in the hands of people that believe ideology must win over the substance of law.
Senator Sinks Obama Court Nominee Over ‘Uncomfortable’ Views on Illegal Immigration
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann
A U.S. senator has scuttled President Barack Obama’s nomination of a pro-amnesty judge from his home state of Georgia in the latest skirmish over judicial nominees.
Citing Judge Dax Lopez’s work with an organization supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., last week torpedoed Obama’s nominee to the U.S. District Court for Georgia.
In a press release, Perdue said he became “uncomfortable” with Lopez’s affiliation with the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials—an organization that the judge described “as very near and dear to my heart.”
Perdue blocked the Georgian’s nomination by withholding his “blue slip.” Under this longstanding Senate tradition, a senator effectively can veto a judicial nominee from his home state simply by refusing to recommend that person to the Judiciary Committee.
For 11 years, from 2004 to 2015, Lopez sat as a voting member on the board of directors of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials. He held the position while serving as a judge on the State Court of DeKalb County beginning in 2010. During his time on the board, the organization of Latino politicians supported Obama’s executive actions to allow millions of illegal immigrants to stay and work in America without being deported. The president’s widely criticized actions currently face a challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the Georgia group regularly weighed in on local controversies.
In 2008, the Latino officials filed a joint lawsuit against the Georgia secretary of state, arguing that state law requiring voters to show identification at the polls unfairly burdened Hispanics. Last year, shortly before Lopez stepped down from the board, the organization commended a local sheriff’s department for refusing to comply with deportation orders from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. In a press release, the group urged “other jurisdictions in the state to adopt similar policies.”
Perdue also voiced concern with “public comments” made by Lopez after he became a state judge. The senator did not specify the remarks he found troubling. In a 2012 radio interview, however, the DeKalb County judge outlined steps that illegal immigrants, when detained, could take to avoid deportation. In addition to the advice, Lopez noted:
That’s not to say that you’re not vulnerable to being deported if you’re just living right and following the laws. Because you’re always vulnerable in a country like this.Before Perdue’s blue-slip block, local legislators and law enforcement officials—including the state Senate’s majority leader and two county sheriffs—opposed Obama’s nomination of Lopez.
In an open letter in August, Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren wrote that Lopez’s association with the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials suggested “a prejudice towards law-abiding citizens and law enforcement.”
But after Perdue blocked the nomination, liberal organizations opened a hailstorm of criticism in which they spotlighted Lopez’s Hispanic heritage. The Hispanic National Bar Association dismissed concerns over Lopez’s association with the organization of Latino politicians. In a statement, association President Robert Maldonado wrote:
It is hard to fathom that we are in an era of such animosity that a judicial nominee’s participation in a trade association of bipartisan Latino elected officials is problematic …Our only inference is that he’s unacceptable to Senator Perdue because he is a Latino who believes in Latino participatory democracy.If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Lopez would become the first Latino judge to serve on a federal district court in Georgia. In a statement, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights complained that “as long as men like Senator Perdue are the gatekeepers, it’s unlikely that one ever will.” Born in Puerto Rico, Lopez attended Vanderbilt Law School, where he was a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. As a Republican, he enjoyed support from different corners of the GOP, from the Georgia Chamber of Commerce to conservative radio host Erick Erickson.
Perdue’s veto of Lopez comes as conversations continue among Senate Republicans about blocking all of Obama’s judicial nominees. Some advocate freezing out all future nominees. Others argue that the nomination process already has become too political. As a freshman senator who sits on the Judiciary Committee, Perdue has demonstrated a willingness to slow down the nomination process in certain circumstances. Last year, he opposed the confirmation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Also last week, Perdue voted against confirming Judge Wilhelmina Wright for District Court of Minnesota after it came to light that she had written a law review paper characterizing President Reagan as a bigot. Wright won confirmation, 58-36.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Bernie Sanders Strawman for Hillary? : FBI Says Maybe Not
For them it's about payback for all of the perceived grievances that Bernie says the rich and powerful have perpetrated on this country, and that the powerless have suffered enough. It's time to take our country back.
Elect me and the screwing will stop Bernie says. I will take all of their money and give to you, the poor and disadvantaged middle and lower classes.
And when you consider that this takes in neatly every person in the country, I wonder who will be left to go to work? He says it will only cost about $18 trillion over the next decade. But hey whose counting. We'll worry about that later.
But does it really matter that no one will be working? Bernie says the rich are going to pay all the bills. Another problem here is with no one working for a living, who will deliver the goods and services to everyone that's not working? Whoa!
Hmmmm - I think there is snag in Bernie's agenda, but no mind, elect me and we'll work out the details later. Just get me elected to see how I will make it happen. Remember Nancy Pelosi and ObjmaCare?
Well we know ol' Bernie isn't going to get elected, he is just a straw-man for Hillary. 'See what a nut job Bernie is, I'll be everything you want me to be. Remember, I'll be just like Barack Objma was back in 2008, just believe I'm here for you, oh and I'm here for children to.'
And one further note here, no one but no believes the FBI indict Hillary, especially as long as AG Loretta Lynch who has the final word on this is under Mr Objma's desk.
America Over the Ages : What has Changed & It's Good? (Humor)
This is a good one to make you smile and how thing have turned out over the years since our country was discovered and evolved.
Indian Chief, "Two Eagles," was asked by a white government official, "You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done." The Chief nodded in agreement. The official continued, "Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?"
The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied. "When white man found the land, Indians were running it. No taxes, No debt, Plenty buffalo, Plenty beaver, Clean Water, Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spent all day hunting and fishing. All night having sex." Then the chief leaned back and smiled. "Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that."
The Chief stared at the government official for over a minute and then calmly replied. "When white man found the land, Indians were running it. No taxes, No debt, Plenty buffalo, Plenty beaver, Clean Water, Women did all the work, Medicine man free. Indian man spent all day hunting and fishing. All night having sex." Then the chief leaned back and smiled. "Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that."
GOP Senators Push Back On EPA "Water Act" : EPA's Criminal Intent
Well at least someone is fighting back against the tyranny of the EPA, the most power corrupted agency in our corrupted government. If you can believe it even worse then the IRS. But there are others that can assume the mantel of corruption as well, it's just that the EPA has such a huge history of being out of control, criminal activity, it takes the top spot every time.
No? I wonder why we hear nothing abut the river in Colorado that the EPA destroyed and how or when they intend to repair the damages to the fish and who will pay the tab???? Taxpayers? Again?
GOP Senators Push Attorney General to Investigate EPA Over WOTUS
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann
Two Republican senators opened up a broadside assault against the Environmental Protection Agency last week in the ongoing battle over President Barack Obama’s controversial “Waters of the U.S.” rule (WOTUS), a regulation that extends federal authority over smaller waterways.
In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ben Sasse of Nebraska pushed the Department of Justice to investigate whether the EPA “knowing and willfully violated” federal law. The call for oversight comes as Republicans complain of ongoing executive overreach, fearing that without a push, the administration will continue to turn a blind eye on internal misconduct.
The letter follows a December 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office that found that the EPA violated anti-lobbying provisions by spending tax dollars to persuade Congress and the public to support proposed WOTUS regulations.
That conclusion stems from EPA activity during their blitz to crowd source support for the rule. The government agency launched Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube campaigns to counter Republican opposition to WOTUS, the New York Times reports. In addition, the EPA also employed a social media platform called Thunderclap to solicit comments favorable to the rule. Later, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy used this solicited support in an attempt to sway Congress back in March of 2015. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, she testified:
The Anti-Deficiency Act stipulates that any violating agency must conduct its own internal investigation to identify those responsible—individuals who could be subject to a $5,000 fine and 2 years in prison. But the EPA insists their activity was all a regular part “of a far reaching effort to educate the American public.”
The senators charge that the EPA hasn’t been sufficiently responsive and are asking that the Department of Justice open their own investigation “to determine if any crime has occurred.”
In a joint statement, Sasse criticized the EPA for thinking “it can stonewall” and Inhofe blasted the agency for thinking “it can break the law and illegally spend taxpayer dollars.” Sasse continued:
Advocates contend it would ensure clean water for public and environmental health. Opponents criticize the measure for expanding the federal government and threatening private property rights.
Last week, Obama vetoed a proposal passed under the Congressional Review Act that would have scrapped the measure altogether. Republicans also tried, and failed, last December to gut funding for rule during the end of the year spending bill. The rule still isn’t in effect, however. In October, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the WOTUS rule.
Disclosure: Philip Wegmann’s brother, James Wegmann, is communications director for Sen. Ben Sasse.
No? I wonder why we hear nothing abut the river in Colorado that the EPA destroyed and how or when they intend to repair the damages to the fish and who will pay the tab???? Taxpayers? Again?
GOP Senators Push Attorney General to Investigate EPA Over WOTUS
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann
Two Republican senators opened up a broadside assault against the Environmental Protection Agency last week in the ongoing battle over President Barack Obama’s controversial “Waters of the U.S.” rule (WOTUS), a regulation that extends federal authority over smaller waterways.
In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ben Sasse of Nebraska pushed the Department of Justice to investigate whether the EPA “knowing and willfully violated” federal law. The call for oversight comes as Republicans complain of ongoing executive overreach, fearing that without a push, the administration will continue to turn a blind eye on internal misconduct.
The letter follows a December 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office that found that the EPA violated anti-lobbying provisions by spending tax dollars to persuade Congress and the public to support proposed WOTUS regulations.
That conclusion stems from EPA activity during their blitz to crowd source support for the rule. The government agency launched Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube campaigns to counter Republican opposition to WOTUS, the New York Times reports. In addition, the EPA also employed a social media platform called Thunderclap to solicit comments favorable to the rule. Later, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy used this solicited support in an attempt to sway Congress back in March of 2015. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, she testified:
We have received over one million comments, and 87.1 percent of those comments…are supportive of this rule. Let me repeat: 87.1 percent of those one-plus million are supportive of this rule.According to the GAO, the activity violated the Anti-Deficiency Act—which prohibits the use of tax dollars without Congressional authorization—and therefore constituted illegal “covert propaganda.”
The Anti-Deficiency Act stipulates that any violating agency must conduct its own internal investigation to identify those responsible—individuals who could be subject to a $5,000 fine and 2 years in prison. But the EPA insists their activity was all a regular part “of a far reaching effort to educate the American public.”
The senators charge that the EPA hasn’t been sufficiently responsive and are asking that the Department of Justice open their own investigation “to determine if any crime has occurred.”
In a joint statement, Sasse criticized the EPA for thinking “it can stonewall” and Inhofe blasted the agency for thinking “it can break the law and illegally spend taxpayer dollars.” Sasse continued:
Despite the fact that the Government Accountability Office found that they broke federal law by running a covert propaganda campaign to support their sweeping WOTUS rule, the EPA has doubled down on their lawlessness. It’s time for the Department of Justice to investigate.The letter represents the latest Republican volley in an ongoing battle over the WOTUS rule.
Advocates contend it would ensure clean water for public and environmental health. Opponents criticize the measure for expanding the federal government and threatening private property rights.
Last week, Obama vetoed a proposal passed under the Congressional Review Act that would have scrapped the measure altogether. Republicans also tried, and failed, last December to gut funding for rule during the end of the year spending bill. The rule still isn’t in effect, however. In October, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the WOTUS rule.
Disclosure: Philip Wegmann’s brother, James Wegmann, is communications director for Sen. Ben Sasse.
Washington's Transgender Bathrooms : Sexual Assult Victims Speak Out
Again, what ever happened to majority rule and minority right? How is it that 99.9% of the population has to bend to the demands of the .01%? Who makes the rules and why do they think what they are doing is the right thing to do?
This is making moral judgements for people that are protected by their personal and Constitutional rights as individuals. What ever happened to a judgement free society that the progressive socialists are always trotting out as the new wave morality. Live free. Right?
Where do such a small number of bureaucrats get this kind of power to make demands on such a large percentage of citizens to benefit such a small portion of people and in such a way that crosses the most intimate areas of our society?
Who are these people? Where do they come from?
Sexual Assault Victims Speak Out Against Washington’s Transgender Bathroom Policies
Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness
OLYMPIA, Wash.—A group of women who say they are former victims of sexual assault are making an emotional plea to Washington state legislators to reverse a bathroom policy that they say leaves them and their young children vulnerable, exposed and unsafe. “It started when I was in diapers and went through until I was 10,” Kaeley Triller Haver, who is now 32, told The Daily Signal of her abuse. “I used to get watched in the shower—that was his thing.”
Gretchen Flores, a 47-year-old from Puyallup, Wash., said her abuse happened inside a locker room. “I use to get cramps in my legs when I would swim and he would tell me to come up with him,” Flores said. “He would start at the base of my leg and move up farther than he should have.”
Janine Simon, also from Puyallup, Wash., said her abuser would make her watch porn before assaulting her
For me, grooming started at 8 and raping started at 9,” Simon, 39, told The Daily Signal. “It was a good 18 years before I could start speaking out about it.”
The Daily Signal met with Simon, Triller Haver, and Flores in Washington’s state capital to learn why they’re breaking their silence about their past experiences to fight what they believe are dangerous new policies. “There is no doubt in my mind that many, many people will be hurt with this kind of policy,” Simon said. The policies, which went into effect Dec. 26, grant individuals full access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other gender-specific facilities in accordance with their chosen gender identity instead of their anatomical sex. But already,Simon and the other victims feel their stories have fallen on deaf ears, and they’re being portrayed in the public as “fearmongers.”
“Over and over again, women are told your abuse is not important, it’s not important to fund, it’s not important to protect. This is just one more way for us to know that our abuse doesn’t matter, that we’re not protected,” Simon said, adding:
Months before the rules were officially adopted as state policy, the YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties began allowing transgender members to use locker rooms on the basis of gender identity.
“In April 2015, the YMCA created a policy to demonstrate our commitment to our transgender community,” the organization said in a statement. “As a community-based non-profit organization, we are committed to reflecting the diverse communities we serve. We also have a foundational commitment to child abuse prevention.”
At the time, Triller Haver was working as the organization’s communications director. When she heard the plans to go this route, Triller Haver said she was asked to “draft some talking points.”
“As a survivor of sexual assault,” Triller Haver said she told her bosses, “I can’t do this.”
“They gave me two choices,” she said. “I could resign and receive severance for 10 weeks if I kept quiet or I could quit.” “Guess what I picked.”
As more members found out about the policy, a storm of backlash ensued. According to the Seattle Times, 300 households canceled their memberships. In September, the YMCA decided to scale back its new locker room policies. But by December, they were reinstated. “We’re following state law,” chief executive Bob Ecklund told The Seattle Times.
But critics, including Triller Haver, Simon, and Flores, believe the YMCA was doing much more than following the law—they believe the organization helping to make it. “They colluded with the Human Rights Commission,” Triller Haver said, citing documents she saw while working there. “They spearheaded this effort … I don’t think they could have done it if they didn’t have a Christian organization championing it for them.” The Daily Signal reached out to the YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties for comment. The YMCA did not respond to our request.
Triller Haver and Simon have since canceled their memberships—something that as Christians and longtime volunteers at the organization, they thought they’d never do. Flores said she intends to do the same, but hasn’t been able to go back. “It’s painful,” she said.
In the meantime, Triller Haver, Simon, and Flores have stayed busy organizing a grassroots campaign that includes picketing on sidewalks to pressure the organization into changing their policies. Jill Wade, a mother of two from Spanaway, Wash., is one of the women who joined in on the protests. Just when they thought they were beginning to make progress, the Washington Human Rights Commission applied the rules to all schools and businesses with eight or more employees.
“We’ve been raising awareness about the YMCA but now at this point, they’re a small fish,” Wade said.
A ‘Small Fish’ in a Big Sea
The women are now turning to public officials to plead their case. Already, three Washington lawmakers are working on measures that would scale back the rules to different degrees.
Sen. Doug Ericksen, a Republican from Bellingham, plans to introduce a “simple” one-paragraph proposal that would repeal the rules drawn up by the Human Rights Commission and ban the commission from taking similar action. “I believe that when I drop my kids off at school, or when I take them to a private gym, I have a right to expect that the men will use the men’s locker room and the women will use the women’s locker room,” Ericksen told The Daily Signal. “I shouldn’t have to worry about my young daughters having to come face to face with things that they should not have to be exposed to at their age.”
A trio of Republicans, Reps. Brad Klippert, Tom Dent and Dan Griffey, introduced a bill that requires that a person’s DNA be used to determine what facilities they are and aren’t allowed to use.
Rep. Graham Hunt, a conservative from Orting, Wash., wants to ban anyone from using public facilities opposite from his or her anatomical sex unless that person has undergone sex-reassignment surgery. “I’ve tried to make this about the genitalia,” Hunt told The Daily Signal. “If you don’t have the parts … if you don’t have the plumbing, then you don’t go in.”
Triller Haver, Simon and Flores don’t have a preference as to what version the state adopts—they’re just desperate to see a change.
Emotions at Stake
Having been watched in the shower by her abuser, Triller Haver said it’s been “a gentle, slow process of healing” to use locker rooms again. “I was a college athlete all growing up and I couldn’t even in college shower with my team,” she said. “So for me to use a locker room at all, that’s been a gentle, slow process of healing and I feel like that completely got stripped away.”
The YMCA, Triller Haver added, “was the first place I did shower in public.” In November 2015, Triller Haver authored an emotional blog post in The Federalist about her past abuse and why she believes that allowing transgender women into the women’s locker room poses a serious threat.
Let me be clear,” Triller Haver wrote, adding:
Simon, who used to volunteer for the at Mel Korum YMCA in Puyallup to make sure all volunteers completed training—which included Child Abuse Prevention Training—said she recently experienced her first panic attack in the last decade. “I’ve had my first panic attack in 10 years now knowing in my state there are only certain bathrooms that I will be able to enter safely,” she said. “Places where children gather are the number one place where pedophiles try to get into.”
‘Fearmongers’
Since deciding to speak out, Triller Haver, Simon, and Flores say they’ve been attacked and labeled as “fearmongers.” But Simon, who said her abuser went on to attack other girls after her, said she won’t let the insults stop her. “I know the full weight of not speaking out and people getting hurt,”Simon said, adding:
“If we as survivors have issues, we’re invited to use single occupancy stalls,” she said, adding:
But beyond that, it’s been difficult finding people willing to listen, she said.
Looking down at her 5-year-old daughter playing on the floor, Triller Haver said, “I shouldn’t have to fight so hard to be heard.”
This is making moral judgements for people that are protected by their personal and Constitutional rights as individuals. What ever happened to a judgement free society that the progressive socialists are always trotting out as the new wave morality. Live free. Right?
Where do such a small number of bureaucrats get this kind of power to make demands on such a large percentage of citizens to benefit such a small portion of people and in such a way that crosses the most intimate areas of our society?
Who are these people? Where do they come from?
Sexual Assault Victims Speak Out Against Washington’s Transgender Bathroom Policies
Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness
OLYMPIA, Wash.—A group of women who say they are former victims of sexual assault are making an emotional plea to Washington state legislators to reverse a bathroom policy that they say leaves them and their young children vulnerable, exposed and unsafe. “It started when I was in diapers and went through until I was 10,” Kaeley Triller Haver, who is now 32, told The Daily Signal of her abuse. “I used to get watched in the shower—that was his thing.”
Gretchen Flores, a 47-year-old from Puyallup, Wash., said her abuse happened inside a locker room. “I use to get cramps in my legs when I would swim and he would tell me to come up with him,” Flores said. “He would start at the base of my leg and move up farther than he should have.”
Janine Simon, also from Puyallup, Wash., said her abuser would make her watch porn before assaulting her
For me, grooming started at 8 and raping started at 9,” Simon, 39, told The Daily Signal. “It was a good 18 years before I could start speaking out about it.”
The Daily Signal met with Simon, Triller Haver, and Flores in Washington’s state capital to learn why they’re breaking their silence about their past experiences to fight what they believe are dangerous new policies. “There is no doubt in my mind that many, many people will be hurt with this kind of policy,” Simon said. The policies, which went into effect Dec. 26, grant individuals full access to bathrooms, locker rooms and other gender-specific facilities in accordance with their chosen gender identity instead of their anatomical sex. But already,Simon and the other victims feel their stories have fallen on deaf ears, and they’re being portrayed in the public as “fearmongers.”
“Over and over again, women are told your abuse is not important, it’s not important to fund, it’s not important to protect. This is just one more way for us to know that our abuse doesn’t matter, that we’re not protected,” Simon said, adding:
And now I’m a fearmonger because I’m speaking out about it. I don’t accept it. I’m not. I’m not crying that the sky is falling. This is actually happening. It’s not a pretend thing, I wish it was.
Months before the rules were officially adopted as state policy, the YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties began allowing transgender members to use locker rooms on the basis of gender identity.
“In April 2015, the YMCA created a policy to demonstrate our commitment to our transgender community,” the organization said in a statement. “As a community-based non-profit organization, we are committed to reflecting the diverse communities we serve. We also have a foundational commitment to child abuse prevention.”
At the time, Triller Haver was working as the organization’s communications director. When she heard the plans to go this route, Triller Haver said she was asked to “draft some talking points.”
“As a survivor of sexual assault,” Triller Haver said she told her bosses, “I can’t do this.”
“They gave me two choices,” she said. “I could resign and receive severance for 10 weeks if I kept quiet or I could quit.” “Guess what I picked.”
As more members found out about the policy, a storm of backlash ensued. According to the Seattle Times, 300 households canceled their memberships. In September, the YMCA decided to scale back its new locker room policies. But by December, they were reinstated. “We’re following state law,” chief executive Bob Ecklund told The Seattle Times.
But critics, including Triller Haver, Simon, and Flores, believe the YMCA was doing much more than following the law—they believe the organization helping to make it. “They colluded with the Human Rights Commission,” Triller Haver said, citing documents she saw while working there. “They spearheaded this effort … I don’t think they could have done it if they didn’t have a Christian organization championing it for them.” The Daily Signal reached out to the YMCA of Pierce and Kitsap Counties for comment. The YMCA did not respond to our request.
Triller Haver and Simon have since canceled their memberships—something that as Christians and longtime volunteers at the organization, they thought they’d never do. Flores said she intends to do the same, but hasn’t been able to go back. “It’s painful,” she said.
In the meantime, Triller Haver, Simon, and Flores have stayed busy organizing a grassroots campaign that includes picketing on sidewalks to pressure the organization into changing their policies. Jill Wade, a mother of two from Spanaway, Wash., is one of the women who joined in on the protests. Just when they thought they were beginning to make progress, the Washington Human Rights Commission applied the rules to all schools and businesses with eight or more employees.
“We’ve been raising awareness about the YMCA but now at this point, they’re a small fish,” Wade said.
A ‘Small Fish’ in a Big Sea
The women are now turning to public officials to plead their case. Already, three Washington lawmakers are working on measures that would scale back the rules to different degrees.
Sen. Doug Ericksen, a Republican from Bellingham, plans to introduce a “simple” one-paragraph proposal that would repeal the rules drawn up by the Human Rights Commission and ban the commission from taking similar action. “I believe that when I drop my kids off at school, or when I take them to a private gym, I have a right to expect that the men will use the men’s locker room and the women will use the women’s locker room,” Ericksen told The Daily Signal. “I shouldn’t have to worry about my young daughters having to come face to face with things that they should not have to be exposed to at their age.”
A trio of Republicans, Reps. Brad Klippert, Tom Dent and Dan Griffey, introduced a bill that requires that a person’s DNA be used to determine what facilities they are and aren’t allowed to use.
Rep. Graham Hunt, a conservative from Orting, Wash., wants to ban anyone from using public facilities opposite from his or her anatomical sex unless that person has undergone sex-reassignment surgery. “I’ve tried to make this about the genitalia,” Hunt told The Daily Signal. “If you don’t have the parts … if you don’t have the plumbing, then you don’t go in.”
Triller Haver, Simon and Flores don’t have a preference as to what version the state adopts—they’re just desperate to see a change.
Emotions at Stake
Having been watched in the shower by her abuser, Triller Haver said it’s been “a gentle, slow process of healing” to use locker rooms again. “I was a college athlete all growing up and I couldn’t even in college shower with my team,” she said. “So for me to use a locker room at all, that’s been a gentle, slow process of healing and I feel like that completely got stripped away.”
The YMCA, Triller Haver added, “was the first place I did shower in public.” In November 2015, Triller Haver authored an emotional blog post in The Federalist about her past abuse and why she believes that allowing transgender women into the women’s locker room poses a serious threat.
Let me be clear,” Triller Haver wrote, adding:
I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens.For Flores, who said she was abused inside a locker room when her mom would drop her off for swimming classes, the policies are particularly traumatizing. “Ever since the Y did this, I’ve been waking up sometimes with cramps in my legs and that feeling of terror again,” she said. “If you were a woman assaulted by a man, it feels extremely unsafe.”
Simon, who used to volunteer for the at Mel Korum YMCA in Puyallup to make sure all volunteers completed training—which included Child Abuse Prevention Training—said she recently experienced her first panic attack in the last decade. “I’ve had my first panic attack in 10 years now knowing in my state there are only certain bathrooms that I will be able to enter safely,” she said. “Places where children gather are the number one place where pedophiles try to get into.”
‘Fearmongers’
Since deciding to speak out, Triller Haver, Simon, and Flores say they’ve been attacked and labeled as “fearmongers.” But Simon, who said her abuser went on to attack other girls after her, said she won’t let the insults stop her. “I know the full weight of not speaking out and people getting hurt,”Simon said, adding:
Sex abuse is a silent epidemic and you’re silenced because of the shame, the guilt, there’s a lot of manipulation – that you want it, that it’s your fault. To finally get to the place where I can say I was a little girl that that happened to it there was no shame there was no guilt…That is why so many women stay silent. It’s such a twisting of the soul.Citing statistics that say less than one percent of the American population is transgender, Flores asked, “Why are the 99 percent having to change our whole way of doing things for less than one percent?” To quell anxieties that she might confront male genitalia in the women’s locker rooms, Triller Haver said she’s been instructed to use “private stalls.”
“If we as survivors have issues, we’re invited to use single occupancy stalls,” she said, adding:
It feels like you’re saying, ‘I have to do what you want with my body or I’m a horrible person,’ and that’s a manipulation. I can be a very loving person but I don’t have to shower with you.Since sharing her story on The Federalist, Triller Haver said she’s heard from “hundreds” of other sexual assault victims who share her concerns with the new policies.
But beyond that, it’s been difficult finding people willing to listen, she said.
Looking down at her 5-year-old daughter playing on the floor, Triller Haver said, “I shouldn’t have to fight so hard to be heard.”
Walmart Opts Out of D.C. Area : Minimum Wage Headed to $15
Why is this some kind of surprise that the city council of Washington D.C. would be incensed over Walmart deciding DC wouldn't be a good location to build. And if the truth be known, any city that is controlled by progressive socialist liberal democrats should be avoided like the plague. Any city dominated by democrats has to be corrupt as it is run to profit those in control. The city residents are just tools to further their personal ambitions and fortunes.
This isn't just bilge, check out all major cities in this country that are domestic sewers and it will show they are in the grips of democrats and probably have been for decades if not generations. Does Detroit ring any bells?
Walmart’s Decision Not to Build Two More Stores in D.C. is no Surprise
By Pam Villarreal
After “promising” back in 2013 to build two stores east of the Anacostia River in Washington, D.C., Walmart has announced it will no longer do so. One reason, according to the Washington Times, is that their three existing stores in D.C. are not performing as well as hoped. But according to Townhall, the company also cited high building and labor costs as a reason not to move forward. Is anybody surprised?
Evidently, the District’s leaders are, but should they be? At the time Walmart agreed to move into the area, D.C.’s minimum wage was $8.25 an hour. In January 2014, a bill had been signed into law increasing the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour in July 2014. Now the minimum wage has increased to $11.50 an hour, with a possible increase to $15.00 an hour later in the year. Additonally, the D.C. council has proposed a mandatory tax on employers to fund 16 weeks of paid family/maternity leave for private sector workers. Now they are incensed that Walmart is saying, “no thanks.”
Earth to the D.C. council – it’s all about economics, whether you like it or not. And just to be clear, the arrogance of the District in expecting all private firms to cave to their demands hurts low-income, low-skilled workers the most. Consider the demographics of Ward 7, the neighborhood in which the two Walmart stores would have been built:
This isn't just bilge, check out all major cities in this country that are domestic sewers and it will show they are in the grips of democrats and probably have been for decades if not generations. Does Detroit ring any bells?
Walmart’s Decision Not to Build Two More Stores in D.C. is no Surprise
By Pam Villarreal
After “promising” back in 2013 to build two stores east of the Anacostia River in Washington, D.C., Walmart has announced it will no longer do so. One reason, according to the Washington Times, is that their three existing stores in D.C. are not performing as well as hoped. But according to Townhall, the company also cited high building and labor costs as a reason not to move forward. Is anybody surprised?
Evidently, the District’s leaders are, but should they be? At the time Walmart agreed to move into the area, D.C.’s minimum wage was $8.25 an hour. In January 2014, a bill had been signed into law increasing the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour in July 2014. Now the minimum wage has increased to $11.50 an hour, with a possible increase to $15.00 an hour later in the year. Additonally, the D.C. council has proposed a mandatory tax on employers to fund 16 weeks of paid family/maternity leave for private sector workers. Now they are incensed that Walmart is saying, “no thanks.”
Earth to the D.C. council – it’s all about economics, whether you like it or not. And just to be clear, the arrogance of the District in expecting all private firms to cave to their demands hurts low-income, low-skilled workers the most. Consider the demographics of Ward 7, the neighborhood in which the two Walmart stores would have been built:
- Poverty rate: 33%, compared to 17.7% for the District as a whole. (2014)
- Unemployment rate: 13.4% (Feb. 2015)
- High School graduation rate (at Woodson High School): 60%
- Total crimes reported over 60 days (from 12/20/2015 to 01/19/2016): 388 (includes 120 violent crimes).
ObjmaCare Coverage Costs Troubling : Uninsured Fair Better
The devil is in the details - ObjmaCare is unworkable and cost destructive to the nation and the insurance companies that provide coverages that citizens depend on for some security that a major sickness will not force them into poverty.
ObjmaCare does not provide any such security against catastrophic sickness as a program that benefits everyone. ObjmaCare was designed to benefit only those that cannot find any other way to get medical coverage. But the cost are prohibitive as the insurance companies feel the pressures of lost revenue as all of these disadvantaged started signing up for ObjmaCare at the expense of everyone one else. W
hat a great idea. How was this ever to succeed?
News Flash - it was never suppose to succeed, it was suppose to fail and when it did the government would step in and declare, demand a program that will solves all of the country's heath care problems, "single payer health care". A government program that will be all things to all people, paid for by every one else.
Luckily there is significant push back to defund, repeal this nightmare before it becomes so ingrained it cannot be stopped from destroying our heath care and our country.
Trouble Paying Medical Bills: Uninsured Do Better Than Obamacare Insured
By John R. Graham
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics conducts thorough research on health insurance coverage. Recently published early results of the latest National Health Interview Survey have been misrepresented in the media to show that Obamacare is reducing the number of uninsured Americans, and that the number of people having trouble paying for health care has dropped as a result.
Actually, this is not the case. The data show some factor other than Obamacare has caused the survey’s respondents to state that they are having less trouble paying medical bills than in previous years. We know this because those who remained uninsured improved their ability to pay medical bills more than those who got coverage through Obamacare. Only 45 million Americans under 65 years old reported they were in families with problems paying medical bills in 2015.
In 2011, the number was 57 million. That drop of 12 million corresponds with a significant increase in health insurance coverage. The number without insurance dropped by 18 million, from 46 million to 28 million, while the population increased by about three million. So, it looks like two thirds of the 18 million people insured after Obamacare took hold have no more worries about medical bills. Hooray for Obamacare, right? Not at all. In fact, it is those who remained uninsured who account for the biggest share of the decrease in the number of Americans with troubles paying medical bills.
Looking back at 2011, the 57 million with trouble paying were spread out across all categories of insured status: 24 million had private insurance, 17 million had government coverage (usually Medicaid, the joint state-federal welfare program for low-income households), and only 16 million were uninsured. By 2015, the proportion of uninsured with trouble paying medical bills dropped to 30 percent from 36 percent in 2011. That is the same percentage-point drop as took place among those dependent on government, for whom the share dropped from 28 percent to 22 percent. The share of those privately insured with trouble paying medical bills barely dropped, from 15 percent to 13 percent.
Of the 21 million who gained coverage from 2011 through 2015 (of which 18 million were uninsured, plus population growth of three million), five million were added to Medicaid and other government programs. Although the government and most analysts describe these people as “insured,” the description is inappropriate for the same reason that nobody describes people receiving cash welfare benefits as “employed.” Although the government promises these low-income people health care for free or almost free, they actually have very difficult access to care because a significant number of doctors do not accept payment from Medicaid. So, Obamacare’s shifting uninsured patients to Medicaid dependency is unlikely to relieve their challenges with medical bills, relative to those who remain uninsured. As for the 16 million who gained private coverage, this number combines people with employer-based benefits and those with individual policies purchased on Obamacare’s poorly performing health insurance exchanges.
The latter experience very high deductibles, co-pays, and are entangled in confusing and restricted networks of providers. So, it is not surprising that they have not experienced much relief on the payment front either. Because Obamacare shifted so many from uninsured to Medicaid, the actual number of those dependent on government for their health care, who have with troubles paying medical bills, did not drop very much. They account for only three million of the 12 million decrease.
The privately insured account for only one million. Fully eight million of the 12 million person improvement in the number of people in families with trouble paying medical bills between 2011 and 2015 took place among the pool of uninsured Americans. And that pool shrank by 18 million over the five years! The survey does not explain how those left outside Obamacare have managed to get their health finances under control so well.
To be sure, there may be some selection bias: Healthier uninsured patients were more likely to have remained uninsured than the sicker ones. However, the sickest ones would likely have fallen into Medicaid dependency, and those also had less trouble paying their bills in 2015 than 2011. Perhaps these Americans have simply given up waiting for politicians to fix the health care system, and are taking control of their own health spending by discussing fees with doctors upfront, and negotiating payment plans. If so, that is a very good outcome from (or despite) Obamacare.
ObjmaCare does not provide any such security against catastrophic sickness as a program that benefits everyone. ObjmaCare was designed to benefit only those that cannot find any other way to get medical coverage. But the cost are prohibitive as the insurance companies feel the pressures of lost revenue as all of these disadvantaged started signing up for ObjmaCare at the expense of everyone one else. W
hat a great idea. How was this ever to succeed?
News Flash - it was never suppose to succeed, it was suppose to fail and when it did the government would step in and declare, demand a program that will solves all of the country's heath care problems, "single payer health care". A government program that will be all things to all people, paid for by every one else.
Luckily there is significant push back to defund, repeal this nightmare before it becomes so ingrained it cannot be stopped from destroying our heath care and our country.
Trouble Paying Medical Bills: Uninsured Do Better Than Obamacare Insured
By John R. Graham
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics conducts thorough research on health insurance coverage. Recently published early results of the latest National Health Interview Survey have been misrepresented in the media to show that Obamacare is reducing the number of uninsured Americans, and that the number of people having trouble paying for health care has dropped as a result.
Actually, this is not the case. The data show some factor other than Obamacare has caused the survey’s respondents to state that they are having less trouble paying medical bills than in previous years. We know this because those who remained uninsured improved their ability to pay medical bills more than those who got coverage through Obamacare. Only 45 million Americans under 65 years old reported they were in families with problems paying medical bills in 2015.
In 2011, the number was 57 million. That drop of 12 million corresponds with a significant increase in health insurance coverage. The number without insurance dropped by 18 million, from 46 million to 28 million, while the population increased by about three million. So, it looks like two thirds of the 18 million people insured after Obamacare took hold have no more worries about medical bills. Hooray for Obamacare, right? Not at all. In fact, it is those who remained uninsured who account for the biggest share of the decrease in the number of Americans with troubles paying medical bills.
Looking back at 2011, the 57 million with trouble paying were spread out across all categories of insured status: 24 million had private insurance, 17 million had government coverage (usually Medicaid, the joint state-federal welfare program for low-income households), and only 16 million were uninsured. By 2015, the proportion of uninsured with trouble paying medical bills dropped to 30 percent from 36 percent in 2011. That is the same percentage-point drop as took place among those dependent on government, for whom the share dropped from 28 percent to 22 percent. The share of those privately insured with trouble paying medical bills barely dropped, from 15 percent to 13 percent.
Of the 21 million who gained coverage from 2011 through 2015 (of which 18 million were uninsured, plus population growth of three million), five million were added to Medicaid and other government programs. Although the government and most analysts describe these people as “insured,” the description is inappropriate for the same reason that nobody describes people receiving cash welfare benefits as “employed.” Although the government promises these low-income people health care for free or almost free, they actually have very difficult access to care because a significant number of doctors do not accept payment from Medicaid. So, Obamacare’s shifting uninsured patients to Medicaid dependency is unlikely to relieve their challenges with medical bills, relative to those who remain uninsured. As for the 16 million who gained private coverage, this number combines people with employer-based benefits and those with individual policies purchased on Obamacare’s poorly performing health insurance exchanges.
The latter experience very high deductibles, co-pays, and are entangled in confusing and restricted networks of providers. So, it is not surprising that they have not experienced much relief on the payment front either. Because Obamacare shifted so many from uninsured to Medicaid, the actual number of those dependent on government for their health care, who have with troubles paying medical bills, did not drop very much. They account for only three million of the 12 million decrease.
The privately insured account for only one million. Fully eight million of the 12 million person improvement in the number of people in families with trouble paying medical bills between 2011 and 2015 took place among the pool of uninsured Americans. And that pool shrank by 18 million over the five years! The survey does not explain how those left outside Obamacare have managed to get their health finances under control so well.
To be sure, there may be some selection bias: Healthier uninsured patients were more likely to have remained uninsured than the sicker ones. However, the sickest ones would likely have fallen into Medicaid dependency, and those also had less trouble paying their bills in 2015 than 2011. Perhaps these Americans have simply given up waiting for politicians to fix the health care system, and are taking control of their own health spending by discussing fees with doctors upfront, and negotiating payment plans. If so, that is a very good outcome from (or despite) Obamacare.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Mr Objma's Vision for America : Unrecognizable & Unconstitutional
He has stated that maybe his next job will be Secretary General of the United Nations. A job where he can put the final touches on his vision for the 'New World Order' that will seek to bring all nation under one rule of law, (or else).
Just think how great that will be given what he has done to America in just 7 years, and what he will be able to do world wide over the rest of his life?.
Ask any democrat, it's the new world and we are glad to be part of it.
Clinton Crime Family Seeks More Power : Theft of Ultimate Power
Remember how they cancelled prime time TV to broadcast the lynching all day and all night? School classes were suspended so the kids could watch a manufactured tragedy of justice.
Remember what Bill Clinton did while he was president, more then twenty scandals rocked the country, and now Hillary compromising national security with her private email server? We don't even have to get into the Clinton Crime Family Foundation to find more dark activate that requires law enforcement.
But hey, who cares, they're democrats and Clintons. Two good reasons to give them a pass. Nothing to see here, they are just trying to help the middle class and the children.
Climate Change MUST Be Fact : Believe or Go to Jail
It wasn't that many years ago that something as insane as this would have be found only on Comedy Central. But an attorney general that actually believes someone should be arrested for having a difference of opinion can only be found today in the minds of the progressive socialist liberal democrats.
And what this AG from California is demanding is just more proof, not just a theory, that what drives the democrats to do the unimaginable and say the incomprehensible can only be from a generic point of view. The DNA in progressive democrats is different for ordinary human beings. They are different. There can be no doubt.
California Joins the Effort to Persecute, Suppress Scientific Dissent on Climate Change
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute ExxonMobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what ExxonMobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”
Neither Harris nor Schneiderman recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing—which amounts censoring or restricting speech and debate on what is a contentious scientific theory. In fact, they want not just to stop anyone who questions the global warming theory from being able to speak; they want to punish them with possible civil sanctions or even criminal penalties. As I said before about Schneiderman, Harris needs a remedial lesson in the First Amendment.
Perhaps we should investigate what Harris “knows” about global warming or climate change, which Harris (and Schneiderman) treats as if it is a proven, unassailable, incontrovertible fact. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris has pointed out, “flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe.”
According to Loris, leaked emails and documents from various universities and researchers have “revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals.” Furthermore, the “gaffes” that have been exposed in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports “have only increased skepticism” about the credibility of this scientific theory.
And what this AG from California is demanding is just more proof, not just a theory, that what drives the democrats to do the unimaginable and say the incomprehensible can only be from a generic point of view. The DNA in progressive democrats is different for ordinary human beings. They are different. There can be no doubt.
California Joins the Effort to Persecute, Suppress Scientific Dissent on Climate Change
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute ExxonMobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what ExxonMobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”
Neither Harris nor Schneiderman recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing—which amounts censoring or restricting speech and debate on what is a contentious scientific theory. In fact, they want not just to stop anyone who questions the global warming theory from being able to speak; they want to punish them with possible civil sanctions or even criminal penalties. As I said before about Schneiderman, Harris needs a remedial lesson in the First Amendment.
Perhaps we should investigate what Harris “knows” about global warming or climate change, which Harris (and Schneiderman) treats as if it is a proven, unassailable, incontrovertible fact. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris has pointed out, “flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe.”
According to Loris, leaked emails and documents from various universities and researchers have “revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals.” Furthermore, the “gaffes” that have been exposed in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports “have only increased skepticism” about the credibility of this scientific theory.
Executive Overreach the New Norm? : Congress Is Too Weak
Executive overreach is a way of life in the Objma administration and will be for the remainder of Mr Objma's time in office. Mr Objma never intended to work with the congress even when it was controlled by progressive socialist democrats as witnessed his opportunity move on gun control and immigration to mention only a few of the program changes he said he wanted to make .
Never the less, it stands to reason Mr Objma ideology and agenda is to what ever he wants to implement his " fundamental change" to the American society as he knows the Republicans have no answer for what to do about abusive power by the president.
But who does? Is this a Constitutional crisis?
New House Task Force Considers Push Against Presidential Overreach
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann
House Republicans have put together a team to address what they consider unauthorized expansion of presidential power. In coming months, the Task Force on Executive Overreach will explore how Congress can begin to reassert its legislative authority. But it’s not political. So says House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who authorized the task force. The effort is meant to address some of the habitual abuses against the constitutional separation of powers, he said. “This is not just about Barack Obama,” Goodlatte told The Daily Signal. “There have been plenty of presidents, of both political parties, who have overreached and stepped on the Article I powers of Congress.”
During the present administration, Goodlatte points to Obama’s executive order that halted the deportation of nearly 5 million illegal aliens. And he argues that the president has flouted the law by circumventing Congress and acting unilaterally in other matters. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear United States v. Texas, a case challenging the Obama administration on the constitutionality of the president’s executive actions on immigration. In December 2014, Goodlatte filed court papers opposing Obama’s actions.
“This is a huge case,” Goodlatte told The Daily Signal. “I’m optimistic they will find, as the lower courts found, as Congress has maintained, as 26 state attorneys general contend, that the president doesn’t have the authority that he took.” The Virginia Republican has filled out the task force’s roster of 11 to include high-profile Republican members such as Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi. Democrats have yet to finalize their nine members, he said.
Goodlatte maintains that Congress shares the blame for the growth of executive power. The Judiciary chairman faults the House and Senate for willingly surrendering their lawmaking authority to unelected administrators. For a recent example, he points to the Obamacare legislation that was more than 2,700 pages long when Congress passed it in 2010. Now, Goodlatte says, the executive branch has written another 30,000 pages of regulations to implement that law. “That’s a huge number of decisions and tremendous amount of power that has been transferred from the legislative to the executive branch,” he said. “It’s a mistake for Congress to designate that much power.”
Federalist Society to Examine Role of Congress
But this play isn’t new. It’s been happening since the Nixon administration, Goodlatte argues. He contends that legislation like the Clean Air Act of 1970 had “very good objectives” but ceded too much authority to regulators:
Goodlatte didn’t disclose specifics, opting instead to speak generally about the work of the task force until it presents findings in six months. He did say the group will reconsider the current state of traditional congressional powers such as oversight, authorization of spending, and confirmation of judicial nominations.
But Goodlatte didn’t shy away from addressing the current controversy surrounding the Senate’s use of the filibuster. He said he is sure the working group will wade into the discussion of the rule.
As long as the Senate obeys “rules that require a supermajority to move legislation,” Goodlatte said, the House can’t move a challenge to presidential overreach to the front burner.
Never the less, it stands to reason Mr Objma ideology and agenda is to what ever he wants to implement his " fundamental change" to the American society as he knows the Republicans have no answer for what to do about abusive power by the president.
But who does? Is this a Constitutional crisis?
New House Task Force Considers Push Against Presidential Overreach
Philip Wegmann / @PhilipWegmann
House Republicans have put together a team to address what they consider unauthorized expansion of presidential power. In coming months, the Task Force on Executive Overreach will explore how Congress can begin to reassert its legislative authority. But it’s not political. So says House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., who authorized the task force. The effort is meant to address some of the habitual abuses against the constitutional separation of powers, he said. “This is not just about Barack Obama,” Goodlatte told The Daily Signal. “There have been plenty of presidents, of both political parties, who have overreached and stepped on the Article I powers of Congress.”
During the present administration, Goodlatte points to Obama’s executive order that halted the deportation of nearly 5 million illegal aliens. And he argues that the president has flouted the law by circumventing Congress and acting unilaterally in other matters. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear United States v. Texas, a case challenging the Obama administration on the constitutionality of the president’s executive actions on immigration. In December 2014, Goodlatte filed court papers opposing Obama’s actions.
“This is a huge case,” Goodlatte told The Daily Signal. “I’m optimistic they will find, as the lower courts found, as Congress has maintained, as 26 state attorneys general contend, that the president doesn’t have the authority that he took.” The Virginia Republican has filled out the task force’s roster of 11 to include high-profile Republican members such as Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi. Democrats have yet to finalize their nine members, he said.
Goodlatte maintains that Congress shares the blame for the growth of executive power. The Judiciary chairman faults the House and Senate for willingly surrendering their lawmaking authority to unelected administrators. For a recent example, he points to the Obamacare legislation that was more than 2,700 pages long when Congress passed it in 2010. Now, Goodlatte says, the executive branch has written another 30,000 pages of regulations to implement that law. “That’s a huge number of decisions and tremendous amount of power that has been transferred from the legislative to the executive branch,” he said. “It’s a mistake for Congress to designate that much power.”
Federalist Society to Examine Role of Congress
But this play isn’t new. It’s been happening since the Nixon administration, Goodlatte argues. He contends that legislation like the Clean Air Act of 1970 had “very good objectives” but ceded too much authority to regulators:
There is no way that one can say that the Congress back in the 1970s—when they wrote that law—envisioned or intended that it would be rewritten to take into account things that bureaucrats would like to regulate almost 50 years later.As a result, government agencies simply bypass Congress “when they think there’s a need for a change in policy,” he said. “They simply change the regulations.” Goodlatte, who will serve as an ex officio member of the task force, said that “regardless of your party, this should be a concern.” Jordan echoed that sentiment, arguing that “presidents of both parties have usurped Congress and legislated from the Oval Office.”
Goodlatte didn’t disclose specifics, opting instead to speak generally about the work of the task force until it presents findings in six months. He did say the group will reconsider the current state of traditional congressional powers such as oversight, authorization of spending, and confirmation of judicial nominations.
But Goodlatte didn’t shy away from addressing the current controversy surrounding the Senate’s use of the filibuster. He said he is sure the working group will wade into the discussion of the rule.
As long as the Senate obeys “rules that require a supermajority to move legislation,” Goodlatte said, the House can’t move a challenge to presidential overreach to the front burner.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Bill Clintons Cornucopia of Friends : Wheres' Hillary Fit In?
Now, what was it that Hillary was saying a few weeks ago about Bill's past not causing stress among her female supporters?Here is a montage of friends that bubba has found fascinating over the last several decades.
Surgery Causes Difficult Changes : Be Careful (Humor)
You be carefull going to hospital and having surgery !!!
|
ATF's Fast And Furious Criminal : Objma & Holder Guilty As Charged
If you have had any misgivings about the agenda of the Mr Objma, and the progressive socialist liberal democrats, that are in control the Department of Justice as well as nearly every other department or agencies in our government, wonder no longer, if you ever did, our government is not dictated to serving the needs of he people.
Our present government is dictated to "fundamental change" to where the government is not here to serve the needs of the people, but Mr Objma's ideology and agenda is 'how can the people serve the needs of the government'.
Will Obama Be Held Accountable for Fast and Furious? What a New Court Decision Means
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky
In an odd coincidence, a federal district court on Tuesday issued a decision against President Barack Obama in the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco, at almost the same time that Fox News broke a story about Mexican authorities finding a Fast and Furious gun in the hideout of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.
El Chapo
Guzman, who had escaped from a Mexican prison through an elaborate underground tunnel, is the notorious head of the Sinaloa drug cartel. Guzman was captured by Mexican law enforcement, who claim to have shadowed American actor Sean Penn leading up to an interview with Guzman (Penn’s interview in Rolling Stone is a story in itself).
The authorities seized a .50-caliber rifle in Guzman’s possession. When agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) checked its serial number, they found that it was one of the rifles they had allowed straw buyers to purchase as part of Operation Fast and Furious, and then lost track of when the guns crossed the border into Mexico.
This is the type of rifle popular with long-range shooting competitors because of its power, range, and accuracy. Fox News was told by federal law enforcement sources that Guzman would station his men on “hilltops to be on guard for Mexican police helicopters that would fly through valleys conducting raids” so they could shoot down the helicopters.
Out of the estimated 2,000 weapons that the ATF lost track of in Operation Fast and Furious, 34 were .50-caliber rifles. That is just one reason why Operation Fast and Furious was probably the most reckless law enforcement operation ever conducted by a federal agency—or as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said, a “felony stupid” operation.
Fast and Furious Decision
The Tuesday decision by District of Columbia Federal District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, was in the lawsuit that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform filed in 2012 to enforce a subpoena the Committee served on former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2011.
On Feb. 4, 2011, after Congress started investigating the operation, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, denying that any weapons had been allowed to leave the country and enter Mexico. Ten months later, the Department of Justice retracted that denial and confirmed that federal investigators had allowed straw purchasers to smuggle weapons into Mexico.
The subpoena sought documents from the Justice Department and ATF (which is part of the DOJ) about Operation Fast and Furious, including anything bearing on DOJ’s false claim in the Feb. 4 letter; why it took so long for Congress to be informed about the misrepresentation; and, according to Jackson, any records “reflecting the agency’s internal deliberations over how to respond to Congressional and media inquiries.”
Executive Privilege
While the Justice Department turned over some materials to Congress, Holder refused to provide any DOJ/ATF records created after February 4, 2011. On June 19, 2012, the Justice Department informed Congress that Obama had asserted executive privilege over all documents after Feb. 4.
Less than two week later, on June 28, the House of Representatives voted—for the first time in American history —to hold an attorney general in contempt. After the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia refused to enforce the contempt citation, the House filed its own civil suit against Holder, claiming that the assertion of executive privilege was invalid.
On Sept. 30, 2013, Jackson refused the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the lawsuit entirely and stay out of a “political” dispute (DOJ’s characterization) between the legislature and the executive branch. She said that the administration’s “blanket assertion” of privilege over all documents generated after Feb. 4 “could not pass muster.” She ordered the Department of Justice to provide a complete list of all the documents it was withholding, along with whatever privilege it was relying on to withhold each one from Congress.
Ruling on Release of Documents
On Jan. 19, 2016, after a long, continuing tug of war in the litigation between the House of Representatives and the Justice Department over these documents, Jackson finally issued a ruling on the privilege claims asserted by the administration. After the Justice Department kept revising its list of documents, Jackson finally determined that out of 13,753 “unique documents,” the Justice Department had turned over only 3,307 to Congress. The remaining 10,446 documents had been withheld by the Justice Department “in whole or in part” based on the deliberative process privilege (5,342 documents), law enforcement sensitivity (3,041 documents), privacy concerns (1,351 documents), and other miscellaneous reasons (792 documents).
The deliberative process privilege covers conversations with the president, as well other communications among high-ranking executive branch officials “crucial to fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch.” Jackson decided that this privilege does cover the Justice Department’s internal deliberations about how to respond to the press and Congress, but it is a qualified privilege, meaning that a court can order the production if the public interests at stake override the privilege. Here, the Justice Department was claiming that disclosure would harm the ability of its lawyers to have internal deliberations.
However, Jackson ruled against the Justice Department because the records had already been turned over to the Department of Justice inspector general. The inspector general issued a report on Fast and Furious, according to Jackson, that “laid bare the records of [DOJ’s] internal deliberations—and even published portions of interviews revealing its officials’ thoughts and impressions about those records.” Thus, “whatever incremental harm that could flow from providing the Committee with the records that have already been publicly disclosed is outweighed by the unchallenged need for the material.”
In fact, the Department of Justice can “point to no particular harm that could flow from compliance with this subpoena, for these records, that it did not already bring about itself.” The Justice Department listed nine documents it was withholding without giving a reason; those documents were ordered by Jackson to be produced. The judge also ordered the production of the “segregable portions of any records withheld in full or in part on the ground they contain attorney-client privileged material, attorney work product, private information, law enforcement sensitive material, or foreign policy sensitive materials.” Whether any additional records have to be produced, she said, “is a matter to be resolved between the parties themselves.”
In an interesting comment on the current reputation of the Justice Department, counsel for the Committee told Jackson that they “did not have sufficient trust in the Department of Justice to take the Department’s word on [redactions].” Jackson said, however, that she had no reason to disbelieve “assertions made in pleadings by an officer of the court representing another, equal branch of government” but that if a “neutral is required to read each individual redaction,” the “parties can arrange for that on their own.”
Jackson ordered the documents turned over by Feb. 2, but when asked whether the Justice Department would abide by the order at a hearing on gun control in a Senate committee on Jan. 20, Attorney General Loretta Lynch refused to tell Sen. Jim Lankford, R-Okla., whether they would comply or appeal the decision.
There is a lot of leeway in Jackson’s order that may still allow the Justice Department to claim it does not have to turn over documents under the other exemptions it has asserted, such as the “law enforcement sensitivity” claim. So this case may not yet be over, and the House Committee (and the public) may never see the internal documents that explain what was really going on inside the ATF and the Justice Department when Operation Fast and Furious was conceived, planned, and implemented.
Our present government is dictated to "fundamental change" to where the government is not here to serve the needs of the people, but Mr Objma's ideology and agenda is 'how can the people serve the needs of the government'.
Will Obama Be Held Accountable for Fast and Furious? What a New Court Decision Means
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky
In an odd coincidence, a federal district court on Tuesday issued a decision against President Barack Obama in the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco, at almost the same time that Fox News broke a story about Mexican authorities finding a Fast and Furious gun in the hideout of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.
El Chapo
Guzman, who had escaped from a Mexican prison through an elaborate underground tunnel, is the notorious head of the Sinaloa drug cartel. Guzman was captured by Mexican law enforcement, who claim to have shadowed American actor Sean Penn leading up to an interview with Guzman (Penn’s interview in Rolling Stone is a story in itself).
The authorities seized a .50-caliber rifle in Guzman’s possession. When agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) checked its serial number, they found that it was one of the rifles they had allowed straw buyers to purchase as part of Operation Fast and Furious, and then lost track of when the guns crossed the border into Mexico.
This is the type of rifle popular with long-range shooting competitors because of its power, range, and accuracy. Fox News was told by federal law enforcement sources that Guzman would station his men on “hilltops to be on guard for Mexican police helicopters that would fly through valleys conducting raids” so they could shoot down the helicopters.
Out of the estimated 2,000 weapons that the ATF lost track of in Operation Fast and Furious, 34 were .50-caliber rifles. That is just one reason why Operation Fast and Furious was probably the most reckless law enforcement operation ever conducted by a federal agency—or as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said, a “felony stupid” operation.
Fast and Furious Decision
The Tuesday decision by District of Columbia Federal District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, was in the lawsuit that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform filed in 2012 to enforce a subpoena the Committee served on former Attorney General Eric Holder in 2011.
On Feb. 4, 2011, after Congress started investigating the operation, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, denying that any weapons had been allowed to leave the country and enter Mexico. Ten months later, the Department of Justice retracted that denial and confirmed that federal investigators had allowed straw purchasers to smuggle weapons into Mexico.
The subpoena sought documents from the Justice Department and ATF (which is part of the DOJ) about Operation Fast and Furious, including anything bearing on DOJ’s false claim in the Feb. 4 letter; why it took so long for Congress to be informed about the misrepresentation; and, according to Jackson, any records “reflecting the agency’s internal deliberations over how to respond to Congressional and media inquiries.”
Executive Privilege
While the Justice Department turned over some materials to Congress, Holder refused to provide any DOJ/ATF records created after February 4, 2011. On June 19, 2012, the Justice Department informed Congress that Obama had asserted executive privilege over all documents after Feb. 4.
Less than two week later, on June 28, the House of Representatives voted—for the first time in American history —to hold an attorney general in contempt. After the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia refused to enforce the contempt citation, the House filed its own civil suit against Holder, claiming that the assertion of executive privilege was invalid.
On Sept. 30, 2013, Jackson refused the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss the lawsuit entirely and stay out of a “political” dispute (DOJ’s characterization) between the legislature and the executive branch. She said that the administration’s “blanket assertion” of privilege over all documents generated after Feb. 4 “could not pass muster.” She ordered the Department of Justice to provide a complete list of all the documents it was withholding, along with whatever privilege it was relying on to withhold each one from Congress.
Ruling on Release of Documents
On Jan. 19, 2016, after a long, continuing tug of war in the litigation between the House of Representatives and the Justice Department over these documents, Jackson finally issued a ruling on the privilege claims asserted by the administration. After the Justice Department kept revising its list of documents, Jackson finally determined that out of 13,753 “unique documents,” the Justice Department had turned over only 3,307 to Congress. The remaining 10,446 documents had been withheld by the Justice Department “in whole or in part” based on the deliberative process privilege (5,342 documents), law enforcement sensitivity (3,041 documents), privacy concerns (1,351 documents), and other miscellaneous reasons (792 documents).
The deliberative process privilege covers conversations with the president, as well other communications among high-ranking executive branch officials “crucial to fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch.” Jackson decided that this privilege does cover the Justice Department’s internal deliberations about how to respond to the press and Congress, but it is a qualified privilege, meaning that a court can order the production if the public interests at stake override the privilege. Here, the Justice Department was claiming that disclosure would harm the ability of its lawyers to have internal deliberations.
However, Jackson ruled against the Justice Department because the records had already been turned over to the Department of Justice inspector general. The inspector general issued a report on Fast and Furious, according to Jackson, that “laid bare the records of [DOJ’s] internal deliberations—and even published portions of interviews revealing its officials’ thoughts and impressions about those records.” Thus, “whatever incremental harm that could flow from providing the Committee with the records that have already been publicly disclosed is outweighed by the unchallenged need for the material.”
In fact, the Department of Justice can “point to no particular harm that could flow from compliance with this subpoena, for these records, that it did not already bring about itself.” The Justice Department listed nine documents it was withholding without giving a reason; those documents were ordered by Jackson to be produced. The judge also ordered the production of the “segregable portions of any records withheld in full or in part on the ground they contain attorney-client privileged material, attorney work product, private information, law enforcement sensitive material, or foreign policy sensitive materials.” Whether any additional records have to be produced, she said, “is a matter to be resolved between the parties themselves.”
In an interesting comment on the current reputation of the Justice Department, counsel for the Committee told Jackson that they “did not have sufficient trust in the Department of Justice to take the Department’s word on [redactions].” Jackson said, however, that she had no reason to disbelieve “assertions made in pleadings by an officer of the court representing another, equal branch of government” but that if a “neutral is required to read each individual redaction,” the “parties can arrange for that on their own.”
Jackson ordered the documents turned over by Feb. 2, but when asked whether the Justice Department would abide by the order at a hearing on gun control in a Senate committee on Jan. 20, Attorney General Loretta Lynch refused to tell Sen. Jim Lankford, R-Okla., whether they would comply or appeal the decision.
There is a lot of leeway in Jackson’s order that may still allow the Justice Department to claim it does not have to turn over documents under the other exemptions it has asserted, such as the “law enforcement sensitivity” claim. So this case may not yet be over, and the House Committee (and the public) may never see the internal documents that explain what was really going on inside the ATF and the Justice Department when Operation Fast and Furious was conceived, planned, and implemented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
