Monday, February 29, 2016

House GOP to Scuttle Spending Bill : History Says Not So

The scariest part in all this is if anyone can trust the Republicans to stay the course even in the face of attacks from the progressive democrats and their friends in the national press. If past history is any indicator of what the Republicans will do, in the end, will collapse under the pressure to do the right thing, stand on principle for what you know will work, not what you are afraid will happen if you actually do the right thing.

It's so sad that the Republican party it seems has become the party of 'to get along we go along'.

House Republicans Vow to Scuttle Boehner-Obama Spending Levels
Philip Wegmann / /

The largest Republican caucus in Congress has thrown its weight behind a proposal to reduce spending significantly and scrap a 2015 budget deal. With that move, the conservative-leaning Republican Study Committee brings additional urgency to an ongoing budget battle in Congress.
House Speaker Paul Ryan wants to keep in place spending levels in the Bipartisan Budget Act negotiated last year between then-Speaker John Boehner and President Obama. But conservatives, and now the House’s Republican Study Committee, want to renounce that agreement.

The committee, with more than 170 Republican lawmakers as members, is pushing to cut $30 billion from the $1.07 trillion established in the Boehner-Obama budget deal. Dismissing last year’s budget for adding billions to the national debt, Chairman Bill Flores, R-Texas, said in a prepared statement:
We must make concrete spending reductions, either in non-defense discretionary spending or through enacted mandatory savings, to offset any spending in excess of $1.04 trillion.
Ryan, R-Wis., has indicated that reneging on the Boehner-Obama spending agreement likely would throw the House off track and scuttle his efforts to achieve regular order during the appropriations process.

Flores told The Daily Signal as much in an interview last month. “If you want to get the appropriations bills done [one at a time through regular order], the numbers in the October budget deal are the ones that’ll be used,” he said. Talk of process and returning to regular order came into vogue when Ryan succeeded Boehner as speaker in late October.

Rather than funding the government through a single “omnibus” spending package, Ryan wants Congress to pass a dozen individual spending bills to fund specific government agencies and programs.

The ranks of the Republican Conference Committee swell past 170 of the 246 Republican members of the House. Its opposition could tip the balance of the debate.  Scrapping the Boehner-Obama spending levels could lead to another catchall omnibus budget bill at the end of the year.

If The Truth Be known : Progressives Behind the Curtain

Telling the truth is something that many among us cannot do or just won't do as it conflicts with their agenda or ideology. The progressives socialist democrats pride themselves on being able to fool a majority of the voting public into believing they really care what happens to them. The reality is the progressive socialists do not care at all what happens them as long as the slow and ignorant do what they are told to do.

In essence, this is the progressive democrat base. By the way, I pose a question to you - do you know who Robespierre was and what he was famous for? Infamous?

But know this, a life poorly lived develops a weakness to be enslaved by others. The progressive socialist liberal democrat collective is riff with weakness.

West Coast Insanity : Oregon's Minimum Wage Legislation

 It seems ignorance has no bounds, no limits to how uninformed and ignorant city officials can become if they are allowed to remain isolated from the real world. What's so much worse, it isn't necessarily the fault of the city officials, what about the people that elected them?

When this insanity proves to be a toxic pill that the citizens were forced to swallow and thousands of workers are laid off and unemployment rampant, I wonder how the progressive city official will convince the public it was the fault of Republicans and George W Bush?

As the saying goes, the people get the government they deserve.

How Oregon’s $14.50 Minimum Wage Will Hurt Those It’s Supposed to Help
James Sherk / /     

Good intentions can produce terrible results. Recently the Oregon legislature passed an unprecedented minimum wage hike in effort to help workers within their state, but the legislation will hurt the workers it’s supposed to help. By 2022, the state’s minimum wage will rise to $14.50/hour in the Portland area, $12.50/hour in rural areas, and $13.25/hour elsewhere. In six years, even rural Oregon will have the highest minimum wage in the country.

Economists examining the 2007-2009 federal minimum wage hike found that affected workers’ weekly earnings dropped by an average of $150 month. This is because while some workers got higher pay, others lost their jobs—or could not find work to begin with.

On balance, low-income workers job prospects worsened. So whose jobs will the Oregon minimum wage hike put at risk? Predominantly restaurant workers and cashiers, along with some personal service workers.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks occupational wages across metropolitan areas. This chart shows occupations in the Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro Metropolitan area, where about 75 percent of workers make less than $14.50 in 2022 dollars. (Note that the Bureau of Labor Statistics metropolitan area definition differs somewhat from the Oregon legislature’s definition of the Portland area).
Cashiers, food preparation workers, waiters, and cooks will feel the heaviest impact. Childcare workers and personal care aides will be affected. Hiring these workers will become significantly more expensive.

What many advocates miss is that many employers cannot afford these higher wages. The average restaurant has a profit margin of around 4-5 percent. Simply raising wages would completely eliminate most restaurateurs’ profits—and then some. They will have no choice but to raise prices. That in turn will drive away customers, reducing the number of employees needed.
Businesses will also respond by looking for new ways to automate labor. This will prove particularly straightforward for cashier jobs. Businesses from supermarkets to fast food chains have all implemented some form of automatic checkout. Over the next six years, Portland businesses will adopt this technology much more extensively than they would have otherwise.

The Oregon legislature can force businesses to pay their employees higher wages. But it cannot force them to hire those employees in the first place. This is a lesson many Oregon workers will soon painfully learn.

Campus Protesters Demand Tolerance & Diversity End! : California Dreaming

So this is the 'new wave world' promised by progressive socialists liberal democrats who advocate for tolerance and diversity, waving their collective arms and shouting that 'we have the answers that will bring us together, but the Republicans and Conservatives just want to tear us apart'.

"I promise, if elected, to fundamentally change America". I wonder how that's working out for us?

Ever wonder why there isn't any outrage among the national media when this happens? Wonder no longer as they are the problem. The media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the progressive socialist liberal democrat national committee(DNC). The task given to the mainstream press by the DNC is,  keep the people under your control ; Keep them uninformed and stupid and willing to do your bidding. The agenda is where's chaos there's profit. 

The mainstream press has for decades sided with those that want to eliminate diversity, tolerance and the freedom to chose as a tool to advance their ideology of 'one size fits all' to take control of the country. Why have any outrage for mod rule if it serves your purpose?

Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation
Natalie Johnson / /     

Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a t
heater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.

Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.  Many in the dense crowd of protesters shoved and shouted at attendees who tried slipping through the doors.

Members of the conservative Young America’s Foundation, host of the event called “When Diversity Becomes a Problem,” said they were forced to sneak groups of four to five in the back door leading directly to the theater to avoid catching the attention of protesters who hadn’t yet obstructed the last entrance.

Protesters barricaded entrances to a theater where Ben Shapiro was giving a lecture Thursday. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America's Foundation)
Protesters barricaded entrances to a theater where Ben Shapiro was giving a lecture Thursday afternoon. (Photo: Jacqueline Pilar/Young America’s Foundation)

Amy Lutz, a program officer at YAF, said the group was able to funnel roughly 100 students into the theater on the CSU-LA campus before protesters surrounded the entrances, preventing anyone from entering or leaving for the duration of Shapiro’s speech.

“It was frightening. I felt like we were hostages in this room because we couldn’t get out,” Lutz told The Daily Signal. She said more than a dozen police officers stayed inside the theater, ordering attendees to stay put until the crowd dissipated. A demonstrator pulled the fire alarm midway through the lecture, but Shapiro carried on with his remarks despite the shrill noise and pounding at the doors.

“Here’s my message to the bloviating jackasses outside: Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world,” Shapiro, editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, said to cheers.
Police escorted Shapiro out of the theater at the end of his speech, citing  “safety concerns.”

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Supreme Court Lawyer Justice : Progressives Demand Action

The hand wringing and arm waving that is going on in the media by the progressive socialist liberal democrats that are demanding the senate do it's Constitutional duty to give an up or down vote on nominees that Mr Objma sends to the upper house of our government, indicates they see another great opportunity to "fundamentally change America". 

Is it strange that the democrats did exactly what the Republicans are doing now to delay consideration on any supreme court nominees that Mr Objma sends to the senate? No it isn't strange at all as this is just the way of politics for democrats, and having the chance to change the landscape of how government will operate for the next 40 years is just to much opportunity for socialist democrats to pass up by standing down in this election year.

For the progressive socialists, this as nearly a once in a life time chance to once and for all take control of the government for the foreseeable future. Everything that the people's representatives or even the president that might propose that might conflict with the progressive ideology can be stopped at the high court. A court that is tilted to a 5/4 progressive socialist balance will decide all out comes on all issues.

Think about it, 5 unelected lawyers, with direct connection to the democrat national committee, ruling the country.

Senate Republicans Plan to Follow Joe Biden’s Advice on the Supreme Court Vacancy
Philip Wegmann / /     

Months before the 1992 presidential election, Joe Biden urged fellow U.S. senators to shut down the nomination process and block President George H.W. Bush’s judicial picks from a confirmation vote.

Today, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, called on the Senate to follow what he dubbed “the Biden Rules.” The lawmakers should leave Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court empty until a new president nominates a successor, Grassley said.

“It’s the principle, not the person,” Grassley argued, quoting at length from remarks made 24 years ago by Biden when the vice president was a senator from Delaware. Grassley said the Judiciary Committee should listen to Biden’s reminder “of the Senate’s constitutional authority to provide, or withhold, consent, as the circumstances require.”

In a floor speech June 25, 1992, Sen. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, argued that senators “should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on [any Bush] nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” It wouldn’t be prudent, Biden said, for Bush to nominate someone to the Supreme Court during what he predicted would be “one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we have seen in modern times.”

Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, would go on to  defeat Bush, a Republican, in the November general election. And during all of that election year, according to records of roll call votes, the Senate confirmed only one circuit court judge.
Biden told his colleagues in 1992:
It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not—and not—name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
For Bush to make a Supreme Court nomination during an election year would turn a nominee into a political football and do harm to the court, Biden argued:
Once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.
Later in 1992, The New York Times reported that Democrats were trying to preserve judicial vacancies for Clinton to fill if he were elected president.

Grassley argued today that the Judiciary Committee should heed Biden’s reminder “of the Senate’s constitutional authority to provide, or withhold, consent, as the circumstances require.”
According to what Grassley called “the Biden Rules,” the Supreme Court can function smoothly without a full bench.  And rather than get into a nomination fight during an election year, the Senate ought to wait for the next president to fill the seat vacated when Scalia died Feb. 13. Democrats argue that with more than 10 months remaining in office, President Obama has a right and a duty to name a successor to Scalia. Grassley said Biden “was and remains a friend.” In a closing shot, Grassley said if Obama makes a nomination, as is expected, Biden, “the man who sat at a desk across the aisle and at the back of the chamber for more than 35 years, knows what the Senate should do.”

California's Minimum Wage Increases : Progressive 'Feel Good' Financial Ignorance

Hey folks, this isn't rocket science, if you demand higher wages for entry level jobs or jobs that demand experience but do not require higher education, the end result will be to increase the cost of doing business.

Why this seems to be lost on so many people in and out of government staggers the mind. It's should be very simple to understand, if you arbitrarily raise the cost of doing business, the business must find a way to lessen the effect on that businesses profit margin or go out of business. To believe raising the minimum wage just because it makes those that have the power to do so feel good, that they are doing the community a service, will in fact be helping to destroy the community.

I know, their hearts are in the right place, and if things don't work out as planed, they can always rely on what has gone before, 'it just seemed to be the right thing to do at the time. We feel bad all these people lost their jobs or where reduced to part-time status, but we will go back to the drawing board to find some other way to assist these workers to acquire a better life'. Latte anyone?

Sadly of course, California is one of the leaders in 'feel good' government. And that this state is headed for default on it primer obligation to server it's people's needs for a better future, and that it is totally controlled by progressive socialists is the reason for it's failure to deliver a common sense and logical system for economic prosperity. 

Meet Business Owners Fighting San Diego’s Proposed Minimum Wage Hike
Melissa Quinn /   February 24, 2016    

Following in the footsteps of cities in northern California, San Diego is weighing an increase to its minimum wage that small business owners warn could serve as a “job killer” for them. The city is gearing up to vote on a proposal to raise its minimum wage to $10.50 an hour—50 cents higher than the state’s current minimum wage—after election results are certified. Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, the minimum wage would increase to $11.50 an hour, with annual increases scheduled to take place beginning in 2019.

The plan, approved by the city council back in 2014, also requires businesses to provide full-time workers with five paid sick days and part-time workers with one hour of sick leave per 30 hours worked. Though San Diego residents won’t hit the polls to vote on the proposal until June 7, small businesses in the area are bracing themselves for the impact of an increase to the city’s minimum wage.

“It’s not a win-win,” Mark Klaus, president of Home of Guiding Hands, told The Daily Signal. “It’s a lose-lose for us.”Based in San Diego County, Home of Guiding Hands is a nonprofit that provides programming and housing to children, teens, and adults with developmental disabilities. The nonprofit operates residential homes located within and outside of San Diego city limits, and Klaus said a minimum wage hike affects his organization and others like it in a unique way. “Our rates are set by the state,” Klaus said. “There’s no way that we can raise our rates. It’s against the law. We’re at a point that if San Diego moves the minimum wage to within six months after this referendum passes to $11.50 an hour, that’s a significant burden for us and other providers that really have no way to pass on these costs.” To compensate for a minimum wage hike, Klaus said the state would need to adjust rates accordingly.

The Democrat-controlled San Diego City Council first approved the plan to raise the city’s minimum wage in July 2014, but the proposal was later vetoed by Republican Mayor Kevin Faulconer. After the city council voted to override his veto, the San Diego Chamber of Commerce launched a petition to force a public vote. The group collected the necessary signatures, and the city council placed the proposal on the June primary election ballot. Approximately 172,000 San Diego residents will receive a raise if voters pass the minimum wage hike in June, City Councilor Todd Gloria told news outlets. Another 279,000 would earn paid sick leave, he said. However, Ann Kinner, owner of San Diego-based Seabreeze Nautical Books and Charts, said the minimum wage hike would be a “job killer.”

“It’s important that people understand the impacts of things like this ‘do-good’ impulse to give everybody a sustaining living wage,” Kinner told The Daily Signal. “I’m sorry. You can’t. It doesn’t work like that. The inflationary part of it is totally out of people’s understanding. You increase my cost, I have to increase something.” Kinner’s store specializes in nautical books and charts, and her clients include the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, as well as tugboat captains and fishing fleets.
The prices of the books and charts she sells are set by publishers and the federal government, respectively, which limits how much Kinner can increase the prices of her products if her labor costs go up. “When my payroll goes up, I pay more to my payroll processing company. All of these things add to my costs, and I can’t magically increase the number of people walking in my front door to increase my sales. It would be lovely if it worked that way,” she said. “My alternatives are, I cut back on the hours I’m paying somebody. Eventually, if it gets squeezed enough, I close the store.”

When Kinner, who took over ownership of Seabreeze Nautical Books and Charts in 2004, first heard that the City Council was planning to pass the minimum wage hike two years ago, she decided to lend her name to the top of the petition and has since been a vocal opponent of the increase. “I was looking at my neighborhood, and I was looking at the impact it was going to have on me and on my friends,” Kinner said. “All these costs keep going up. You’ve got automated checkouts in the CVS and in the Ralphs market where we used to have live people. You want to keep increasing the minimum wage, you’re going to see more and more and more of that.”

Kinner employs one person at Seabreeze Nautical Books and Charts and has cut her own salary to keep up with the rising labor costs. However, the latest statewide minimum wage hike—to $10 an hour, which took effect in January—coupled with the looming potential for another increase to the minimum wage in San Diego, has Kinner worried about the future of her business. “I have said on a couple of occasions I don’t want to be at the helm when Seabreeze sinks, and that’s something that’s very real and concerning to me,” she said. “I have to deal with it as best I can and then figure out what we’re trying to make it keep going. How much longer can I handle it? It’s day-to-day at this point. It’s one day at a time.”

‘Get Government Out of the Way’
According to a January analysis by Investor’s Business Daily, six U.S. cities that raised their minimum wages to $10 an hour or more in 2015 saw jobs decline in the leisure and hospitality industries, two industries that thrive in San Diego. Though the analysis relied on preliminary data, the jobs numbers showed consistency in job losses across the different cities. “These guys just don’t understand economics, and the idea we’re going to take working class people that have these jobs and turn them into middle-class jobs by artificially inflating wages is silly,” Jason Roe, president of the San Diego Small Business Coalition, told The Daily Signal. “The only thing we’re going to be inflating is unemployment.”

Roe’s group was born out of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, which is opposed to the city’s proposal, but now operates independently of the Chamber. Though advocates of a minimum wage hike say that it would help families make ends meet, particularly in an area where the cost of living is high, Roe said that more than half of those working in minimum wage jobs are under the age of 25, as opposed to heads of households working to feed their families. “Most minimum wage jobs are supplemental,” he said. Instead of raising the minimum wage to $11.50 an hour in 2017, as San Diego’s measure would do, Roe said the best way to help workers is to “get government out of the way.” “There needs to be a balance between a regulated minimum [wage] and what employers believe an employee is worth,” he said. “Having said that, if we care about improving the situation of folks at the bottom end of the scale, the best way to do that is through economic growth.”

Inflating the Wage
Like Kinner, Klaus, too, was involved in efforts to put the minimum wage proposal before voters.
“I spent 35 years advocating for fair and adequate wages for our staff,” he said, “and artificially inflating the minimum wage to increase that wage doesn’t provide the outcome or the relief that our staff deserve.” Klaus currently pays his employees more than the minimum wage established by the state. However, he fears that if San Diego residents approve the proposal, it could cause some of his workers to seek less challenging jobs elsewhere, particularly if they know they can find work with more flexible hours for the same pay or more.  Additionally, Klaus said he worries that those working at facilities located outside of San Diego’s city limits will look for employment in the city, where they know they can secure a higher hourly wage.

“We serve some challenging individuals. We’re providing applied behavior analysis services. We’re working with children with autism. We’re providing direct care, assisting people with eating, bathing,” he said. “That’s not an entry level job and that’s the challenge that we have. Why would you want to assist someone with eating and toileting and bathing for minimum wage when you could go work at McDonald’s, and you may come home with a fry burn. The services we provide are not minimum wage jobs.” For Klaus, an increase to $11.50 an hour doesn’t just have an impact on Home of Guiding Hands’ employees.

The nonprofit prides itself on the “quality of life enhancements” it provides its residents, which include trips to the beach and the San Diego Zoo. If the city increases its minimum wage—and the state fails to take action to adjust rates to compensate for the increased labor costs—Klaus said he and other providers will be forced to do away with those services to save costs. “Our mission is very simple. It’s to improve the lives of those we serve,” he said. “At some point if this passes and there isn’t relief, those quality of life enhancements go away, and we then provide minimum standards. We meet the standards, and that’s it. I refer to that, from a residential setting, as three hots and a cot. That’s not a quality of life for anybody.”

Businesses in California have been adjusting to a minimum wage increase that went into effect in 2014, to $9 an hour, and again last month, to $10 an hour. Cities like Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have passed ordinances increasing their citywide minimum wages to $12.55, $12.25, and $10.50 an hour, respectively.
“The state increase was a 25-percent increase over where we were two years ago,” Roe said. “The city-only increase is a proposed 44-percent increase over where we were two years ago. Businesses can arguably figure out how they can navigate the implementation of the 25-percent increase, but when they add another 19-percent increase, it really becomes really difficult.”

Labor unions in the state have already mounted efforts to include a question on the November ballot that would let voters decide whether to raise the statewide minimum wage to $15 an hour.
In San Diego, specifically, residents have already begun seeing changes to the restaurants and businesses they frequent, and some attribute them to increased labor costs. Roe said he and his family have noticed smaller portions, higher prices, and poorer service at neighborhood restaurants. And if San Diego voters approve the plan raising the minimum wage to $11.50 an hour next year, he suspects the problem will worsen.

“These restaurants are now trying to figure out, ‘how do I reduce the number of hours that I have to pay my employees in order to make up the difference in these increased costs?’” Roe said. “The human impact here is folks that work in restaurant and hotel jobs are going to see a reduction in hours, if not a reduction in jobs.”

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Universities Run by Students : Ignorance & Discipline Run Amuck

I wonder what the future will look like at our institutions of higher learning when they are run by the students?

Will this be like the asylum being run by the in inmates?

Immigratants Flooding the Country : What Is The Motivation

Don't know who wrote this but it makes a lot of sense. Just think how nice it will be when everyone will be required to accept an immigrant into there homes and take care of them until they are able to join with the immigrants to demand better accommodations and more control over how their personal lives are progressing.

I wander as well how many immigrants are being allowed into our country that no one knows about and who will take care of them? And why would our progressive socialist leader do this? What could his motivation possible be?

A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials in ages!!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear or see on TV.

Her point: Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, 'No! I like it here. It's better than my house. I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house) .

According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working
and honest. (except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person,
except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted. Oh yeah, and I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so that you can communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! America is populated and governed by idiots.




Elections Have Consequences : The People Found Wanting & Ignorant?

I believe this is on the mark given how the progressive socialist liberal left democrats have driven our country into decline just to gain power and control. Democrats have no other options then to take as much as they can from as many as they can before they are found out.

But the worst part in all this, as I have stated on many occasions, is not the politicians that are stealing us blind, destroying our freedom and the very fabric of our society, it's really the people that voted for them and apparently are still going to vote for the destruction to continue.

Does this mean the people are ready to accept the boot of an all powerful government on their collective necks?

Only now with our country on the edge of that bottomless pit called  progressive socialism, the two candidates for the socialist democrats are ready to not only continue the rape of our country, but they promise to increase the rate at which that destruction will occur. One is a serial socialist criminal and the other is an avoid communist. How can this be in the greatest nation on earth? Have we as a free nation fall this far?

And maybe even worse than a socialist criminal and a communist running for the leadership our country, we have a candidate that stands for the opposition to a criminal and a communists that claims to be a Republican, Donald Trump, but in reality is only a carnival hucksters extolling his promises on a soap box to reveal what's behind the curtain if only they pay the price of admission.

But in reality the cost is too high, as most of us know, a carnival barker can't deliver on his promises as history is riff with those making promises to reveal the truth if we pay the price of admission. And yet the lines of people are long ready to par the price just to see what's behind the curtain. Even when common sense and past experience tells us what carnival side shows are all about, the people step forward anyway.

Sadly, of course, this scenario has played out from our very beginnings as a nation, and as PT Barnum of the circus big top fame, stated decades ago, 'there is a sucker born every minute and two others to take him'

And when the price is paid to see what's behind the curtain, and the 'truth' is reveled, and to our shock, yes we are shocked again, to find it's all a fraud, the stage is empty except for the card board cutout of the huckster laughing all the way to the bank and our demise. We never learn.

Transporation Bill Steeped In Ideology & Waste : Objma's Bill Illegitmate

Mr Objma isn't serious about presenting a budget bill that is representative of the problems that we face today in this country. His entire 8 years in office has been about doing what ever he thinks will advance his ideology of fundamental change to society that he believes is seriously flawed with options for freedom and prosperity, all items that stand in his way for ideologically changing America to something less dominate in world affairs and wrong headed domestically.
Mr Objma and the progressive socialists believe government should be all things to all people. Individual freedom to chose ones own future is not part of Mr Objma's "new wave" ideology. Our Constitution must be changed to reflect the needs of the people as willing subjects rather then individuals. The path to prosperity must be carried by everyone equally so no one is left out of enjoying the better things in life. This is also the foundation of the Hillary campaign, 'it takes an entire village to raise a child.'

And the Sanders campaign, and the Hillary campaign to some extent, are based on the tried and failed slogan from the past, 'Each according to their needs and from each according to their abilities'.

Obama Announces $98.1 Billion More Transportation Spending Waste
By Lloyd Bentsen - February 24, 2016

A major portion of the Administration’s proposed new transportation spending21st Century Clean Transportation Plan — is a series of proposals to expand transit systems (31 rail, bus and streetcar systems in 18 states costing $3.5 billion), revive the failed high speed rail initiative, modernize freight systems and provide grants to regional authorities to implement innovative “clean” technologies and “green” transportation programs. This new transportation spending is expected to cost $98.1 billion in just FY 2017.

The President just recently signed a groundbreaking transportation bill — the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or FAST Act — that gave a longer temporary partial solution for the nation’s transportation infrastructure. However, the Fast Act and the new transportation proposal both fail to address several key problems with the Highway Trust Fund and the federal gas tax.

The new administration budget for transportation is a 60% increase over the current annual spending level. To partly pay for the new spending, the Administration is calling for a $10 per barrel tax on oil or a 25 cent/gallon increase in the price of gasoline at the pump which is estimated to bring in $650 billion over a decade.

Despite this, the administration’s budget request was declared dead even before its arrival on Capitol Hill, just like most of Obama’s previous transportation budget proposals.

Friday, February 26, 2016

Objma Illegally Diverts $Billions From US Tresury to Insurance Companies

The Objma administration is violation of the law as it's actions to transfer funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to insurance companies instead of the US Treasury as the Affordable Care Act says it must, is illegal.

Again, and still, Mr Objam and his progressive socialist democrats are criminals. No matter what department or agency in this government, they seem to be doing things that are illegal. I believe this is called a tyranny of the few.

Lawmakers: Obama Administration Illegally Diverted Billions Intended for US Treasury to Insurers
Melissa Quinn /           

Republicans on Capitol Hill are questioning the legality of a move by the Obama administration to give billions to insurers under a program implemented under Obamacare that they say is equal to an insurer bailout. At issue for lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee is whether the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated the Affordable Care Act by diverting $3.5 billion intended for the U.S. Treasury to insurance companies.

“[Earlier this month], the administration announced that they would be using billions of taxpayer dollars to make payments to insurance companies under the Obamacare reinsurance program,” Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., said Wednesday during a hearing with Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell. “The announcement that the administration made represents an illegal wealth transfer from hardworking taxpayers to insurers,” he continued, “and this law is very clear—$5 billion of reinsurance fees must be returned to the taxpayers.”

Experts have pointed out that with the absence of payments to the U.S. Treasury in 2014 and 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services owes the U.S. Treasury $3.5 billion in payments from the transitional reinsurance program—$2 billion for 2014, and $1.5 billion for 2015.
“CMS to date has diverted $3.5 billion from the Treasury to help the insurance companies, effectively bailing out insurance companies with taxpayer dollars,” Pitts said. Pitts argued that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated the law by prioritizing reinsurance payments to insurance companies instead of the U.S. Treasury.

Burwell, though, said the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had the statutory authority to defer payments to the U.S. Treasury and direct the money to insurers. “The consumer or the citizen is what we’ve tried to put at the center, and whether that’s in the decisions of how we’ve done the technology or how we make decisions about ensuring that those dollars actually went to the place where they would most help the consumer with regard to downward price pressure [on premiums],” Burwell told the panel Wednesday. “And it is our belief that we have that authority.”

On Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service addressed questions from both the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees in a memo regarding the transitional reinsurance program.
The memo explored whether the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had the authority to direct money away from the U.S. Treasury to insurance companies under Obamacare’s reinsurance program. “Insofar as CMS’ interpretation allows the entire contribution of an issuer in any given year to be used only for reinsurance payments, such that no part of it is allocated for the U.S. Treasury contribution, then that would appear to be in conflict with a plain reading of [the Affordable Care Act],” the Congressional Research Service found.

Under the health care law, the memo continued, contributions from insurance companies collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “contain an amount that reflects ‘its proportionate share’ of the U.S. treasury contribution.” “CRS has concluded that your action to divert billions to insurance companies appears to be unlawful,” Pitts told Burwell. “Did your department receive any pressure from insurance companies to divert billions from taxpayers to pay off insurers?”
In addition to questioning the legality of the reinsurance payments to insurers, Pitts also pressed Burwell on whether Marilyn Tavenner, former administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had discussed the issue with her and other government officials.

Tavenner left the Obama administration last year and now leads America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing insurers.
In addition to the report submitted to the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways and Means Committee has also taken issue with the administration’s diversion of funds from the reinsurance program. Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas; Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Peter Roskam, R-Ill.; and Subcommittee on Health Chairman Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, asked Burwell for documents related to the reinsurance program in a letter sent Feb. 9.

“It appears that the administration has illegally diverted funds from the U.S. Treasury to fund the transitional reinsurance program established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” they wrote. “Not only is this diversion inconsistent with past policies promulgated by the administration but it is incompatible with clear congressional instructions contained within the ACA. We ask that HHS immediately submit to the Treasury all diverted funds.”
Obamacare’s transitional reinsurance program, which is in place for 2014, 2015, and 2016, was designed to mitigate the risks insurance companies incurred by covering consumers who were uninsured prior to Obamacare’s implementation.

The Affordable Care Act imposed $25 billion in fees on insurance companies selling employer-sponsored and individual market plans spread over the reinsurance program’s short lifespan. The law called for $5 billion to be used for reinsurance contributions to employer and union retiree plans. The remaining $20 billion was to be used for contributions to individual market insurers.
The $5 billion for employer and union retiree plans was allocated immediately after the Affordable Care Act passed in 2009, and the money was spent before the end of 2010.
To repay the U.S. Treasury for the $5 billion doled out to employer and union retiree plans, which happened before the government collected money from insurers, the law specified that $5 billion be remitted to the Treasury in installments of $2 billion in 2014, $2 billion in 2015, and $1 billion in 2016.

Consequently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was instructed to raise $12 billion in 2014 and $8 billion in 2015 through contributions to the transitional reinsurance program. Of the $12 billion raised in 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was supposed to return $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury, with the remaining $10 billion intended to go to insurance companies selling Obamacare plans. For 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was supposed to collect $8 billion and remit another $2 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

The agency, though, did not raise the $12 billion it expected to collect. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it estimated it would collect $9.7 billion for 2014. According to an announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released in September, the Obama administration decided not to repay the Treasury first, as is specified in the Affordable Care Act. The agency said it would distribute $7.9 billion of the estimated $9.7 billion to insurers. More than $1.6 billion—the amount remaining—was set aside for 2015, with the intent that it, too, would go to insurers selling individual market coverage.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ decision went largely unnoticed, with the exception of a January article in Forbes highlighting the government’s action.
Then, on February 12, the Obama administration announced it would again prioritize payments to insurers over the Treasury, which lawmakers say is a violation of the health care law.
According to the announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government estimated it would collect $6.5 billion through the transitional reinsurance program for 2015. Of that, the federal government said it would distribute $5.5 billion to insurance companies for reinsurance payments and $500 million to the U.S. Treasury. The remaining $500 million would go toward the program’s administrative costs.

National Anthem Sung by 500 High School choir Students : Fantastic!! (Video)

This quite exceptional - it will bring a tear to your eye for anyone that still believes America is truly the land where the lights are still on in that shining city on the hill.
The All State Choir conference [KMEA] in Louisville, Kentucky. Night fell and the competitors returned to the Hyatt hotel to rest up for the strenuous day of song ahead. But of course, music never sleeps.
In the video, the choir participants can be seen emerging from their rooms, joining together to sing our National Anthem in a rendition that would make anyone shed a tear. These talented singers make sweet, sweet music from the 18 floors of the hotel. Try not to shed a tear for America. Just try.
Our National Anthem
500 high school choir students sing the U.S. National anthem in a high-rise hotel.  Each night before curfew, they gather on their balconies to sing the Star-Spangled Banner from the balconies of the 18-story atrium at Louisville's downtown Hyatt Regency as part of the Kentucky Music Educators convention.  Beautiful!

Martin Luther King Had A Dream : Objma Brings Blacks A Nightmare

One has to wonder why the black experience has been turned into more of a nightmare then it was before the real first black president took office?

And after 8 years of Mr Objma, blacks are still ready to vote for more bad news as they line up at more then 90% ready to accept Hillary for 4 or 8 years of more poverty and discontent.

Common sense seems that the black community could find someone to lead them out of the thinking that democrats are honest in their promises to be 'all in' to help blacks attain more prosperity.

The truth is the democrats do not care what happens to the black community. Blacks are just a tool that the democrats have used for decades as a reliable base voter block, and that is all.

"Operation Choke Point" Still Moving Forward : Progressive's Gun Agenda

Do we have such a short memory that "Operation Choke Point" has fallen into some kind of progressive mist all the while the president's thugs move continually forward to crush the second amendment and actually all small businesses, not just the arms industry. It's about control of production under the false headline about saving our children from gun violence.

Mr Objma is all about the ideology of making America an 'also ran' to allow other forces to take control of the American dream. Just imagine how nice it will be living under the boot of government progressives that are demanding citizens become subjects to the power elites in Washington.

Never forget, this is what Mr Objma promised, "Fundamental change" while everyone cheered.
Ohio Gun Seller Alleges ‘Widespread’ Government Discrimination
Kelsey Harkness /

An Ohio firearms retailer who was recently denied access to banking services says the federal government is continuing to “discriminate against” his industry. “I definitely think the government is discriminating against our industry,” William Evans, president and CEO of American Tactical Concepts in Wadsworth, Ohio, told The Daily Signal. “It’s a little too widespread.”

Evans, who has also served as an emergency medical technician for 13 years, said since President Barack Obama took office, he’s noticed a trend of more firearms retailers being denied banking services. Earlier this month, while trying to obtain a line of credit from Direct Capital so that he could purchase in new machinery to manufacture receivers from scratch, Evans said the online application required him to provide information about his business, a “full service AR shop.”

Forty-eight hours later, Evans said, “I got a notice that they would not lend to us due to industry.”
Evans provided The Daily Signal a copy of Direct Capital’s response.

“[W]e received your application for equipment financing but unfortunately it was not approved due to industry,” Christopher Smith, a finance manager at Direct Capital, wrote to Evans.
Instead, Smith said there’s a “possibility” they could provide Evans “working capital,” which according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, is the difference between current assets and current liabilities.
According to its website, Direct Capital provides “small and mid-sized businesses with fast and easy access to the capital they need to grow and prosper.” The company is a division of CIT Bank, which is overseen by federal banking regulators at the Office of Comptroller of the Currency and is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

The Daily Signal reached out to the banks and federal regulators, and did not immediately hear back.
Evans believes the refusal is linked to Operation Choke Point, a government program designed to reduce fraud by using financial regulators to pressure banks out of doing business with “high risk” industries. The government has denied any targeting of firearms sellers under Operation Choke Point, which was launched in 2013 by the Justice Department, but critics believe the program still having an effect, whether intentional or not. “I think they’re trying to target other industries and we’re getting caught up in the backlash,” Evans said. “They’re definitely going after porn and payday lenders, and our industry is an afterthought.”

Under Operation Choke Point, pornography and payday lenders were among industries labeled “high risk” by the FDIC, alongside firearms and ammunition sellers. Evans said he’s “offended” that government agencies have associated firearms sellers with these industries and that the “discrimination” should be stopped. “I would love to see banks look at our companies as what they are—as companies—instead of taking a big bias against us just for what we make,” Evans said.
Since coming under criticism for its role in Operation Choke Point, the FDIC changed its policies to require bank examiners to put in writing any recommendation or requirement for an account termination.
 Read More: FDIC Changes Tactics in Response to Operation Choke Point

Although he was able to secure a new line of credit with PNC Bank, Evans said that he expects the “discrimination” against firearms sellers to continue hurting small business owners like himself.
“Banks are dropping our accounts and once you’ve been dropped sometimes it’s hard to find other places to take you because they’ll ask if you’ve ever been dropped and you have to say yes,” he said.
On Thursday, a gun auctioneer who also lives in Ohio told reporters Akron-based FirstMerit Bank terminated his account because he sells firearms through online auctions. The two business owners are located less than a 30 minute drive from one another. FirstMerit Bank is also overseen by federal banking regulators and is a member of the FDIC.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Thomas Jefferson On Banking, 1802 : Nothing New Under the Sun

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: 
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to
our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." 

Objma Finds Kinship With Castros, Iranians : Tyranny Objma Ideology?

Why is it that Mr Objma is most at ease when he's with mass killers and communist tyrants? He was fist bumping with Huge Chavez and has total support for Iran, Russia and finds appeasing the terrorist killers of ISIS and other terrorist organizations, killing thousands and forcing millions to flee unthreatening.

Does Mr Objma have a different agenda then the rest of us in the trenches? Does he find that defending killers something that appeals to his ideology and view of how and where America should find itself positioned in the larger world?

Freedom isn't what it use to be? Freedom now according to the progressive socialist freedom is having the opportunity to vote for others to deicide your future. And after watching the crowds for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, we are on the glide path to the new world order necessary to make everyone subjects, not individuals.

Obama’s Radical Decision to Cozy Up to a Brutal Dictatorship
Mike Gonzalez /           

Between calls for comity and lamentations over bitter partisanship, Barack Obama does the darnedest, most divisive things. Take his upcoming visit to Cuba, home of a communist, military dictatorship that remains unrepentantly anti-American.
The newspaper Granma, is telling the captive population on the island that President Obama’s visit proves that there are no human rights violation in Cuba.
Cozying up to a brutal regime is a radical, in-your-face action. It’s being done unilaterally, without regard to the will of Congress. Most Americans prize their freedom and, all things being equal, would like others around the world to also be free. Yet extending the hand of friendship to the Castro dictatorship will be a setback for those who hoped for a transition to democracy on the island.

Already, the mouthpiece of the Cuban Communist Party, the newspaper Granma, is telling the captive population on the island that President Obama’s visit proves that there are no human rights violation in Cuba. Granma habitually lies to the Cuban people, who have no other recourse as all newspapers are state-owned, but sadly the party organ has it one quarter right this time: the visit obviously proves that human rights violations do not matter to our president.

Many conservatives thus will be offended by a presidential photo-op with the regime leaders—especially the military dictator Raul Castro and his perennially dying elder brother, Fidel. And offense is in order. The Castros, after all, urged the Soviet Union to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against New York during the Cuban Missile Crisis. “The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims,” boasted their comrade Che Guevara.
Nor are these transgressions in the past. Just two years ago, the Castro regime helped North Korea evade UN weapons sanctions.

But none of that seems to faze Barack Obama. He appears to revel in offending conservative Americans (those rubes who “cling to their guns and religion” as he once delighted in saying). Yet he’s shocked, shocked when the rubes don’t give him whatever he wants. He looks hurt, for instance, when Senate leaders tell him that, no, they’re not going to let him fill a Supreme Court vacancy near the end of his term, when he has one foot out of the White House.

All that the Senate leaders are saying is that they will let the American people decide—something the oppressed people of Cuba never have a chance to do. But the president, who as senator wanted to filibuster the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito, now insists that it is his right to install the justice he wants, when he wants to. The president has already done all he legally can in re-establishing diplomatic relations with Havana. He is limited by law from ending the embargo—a step solely within the purview of the Congress. That makes the visit to Cuba symbolic. And conservatives should welcome the symbolism. That photo with one or both of the Castros should be the one by which the Obama presidency is remembered.

To the surprise of nobody, the president said this week in San Francisco that he would remain “very active in the public life of this country” after leaving office. Nobody really thought that the quiet dignity of George W. Bush would be right for this president. Since he intends to continue to weigh in on the important issues of the day, the photo with the tormentors of 11 million Cubans, in Havana, should serve as a salutary reminder of his time in office, just as iconic as President Richard Nixon’s trip to the city we then knew as Peking.

Obama believes that his trip to Havana is in keeping with that tradition. He forgets that the phrase “Only Nixon could go to China” meant that Nixon could go to China only because he had Cold War, anti-communist bona fides—something this president clearly lacks. He also forgets that China was a strategic antidote to the Soviet Union. Lastly, he also forgets (but we shouldn’t) that when running for office in Miami in 2008, Obama had this to say:
I will maintain the embargo…. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with clear choice. If you take significant steps towards democracy, beginning with with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations.
He also said:
My policy towards Cuba will be guided by one word: liberty. The road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba’s political prisoners, the right of free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly, and it must lead to elections that are free and fair. That is my commitment.
On Thursday, after the president announced his visit, I reached Antonio Rodiles on the phone. A Cuban dissident leader, Rodiles bemoaned the fact that Obama is going to Cuba “without any pre-conditions,” despite the clear promises made in Miami. He’s also wary of White House promises that the president will meet with dissidents in Havana, “just as in Panama.” But, Rodiles notes that the only “dissidents” Obama during last year’s Summit of the Americas in Panama were pro-Castro “dissidents,” hand-picked by the regime.

Rodiles thinks it far more likely that Obama will spend his time in Havana touring the baseball stadium, since the presidential visit just happens to coincide with a match there between the Cuban National Team and the Tampa Bay Rays. “Obama will probably throw the first pitch. It will be a show,” Rodiles told me. It looks like Cuba’s dissidents know how to read Obama pretty well. Let’s hope our Senate does, too.

Grassley : Republicans To Vote On SCOTUS Nominee? : Republican Party Will Collapse

According to the latest news from congress, Grassley and McConnell have scheduled meetings with Mr Objma to discuss Supreme Co9urt nominees. Some say the Republicans should give any nominee an up or down vote no matter what has transpired over the last several decades by the democrats including senator Objam and senator Schumer and vice present Biden that there can not be any confirmation votes in a presidential election year.

Oh but wait, according to leading democrats, that was then and this is now, now it's the progressive democrats that want to flip the courts from deciding constitutional questions to proposing, approving and making ideological legislation from the bench. With the progressive socialist liberal democrats having a 5/4 domination on the court just means the 4 Conservative justices may as well stay home as their votes will count for little.

To have a symbolic vote to appease the damocrats will be a disaster as the Republicans have a street cred problem, when they are depended on to do the right thing they will collapse. The Republicans cannot be trusted - history tells the story of their inability to actually stand on principle.

Know this as well, if the Republicans would actually approve a nominee from Mr Objma for the Supreme Court that would turn the court into a mouthpieces for progressive democrats, the Republican party as it is constituted now, will be no more.

Republicans on Judiciary Committee Slam Door on Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee
Philip Wegmann /      February 23, 2016     

All Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee promised Tuesday to block any candidate nominated by President Barack Obama to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In an open letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the 11 Republican senators said they plan “to exercise our constitutional authority to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by this president.”

Under the leadership of Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the group effectively has barred any Obama nominee to succeed Scalia from advancing to the Senate floor through the regular process. After Scalia’s unexpected death Feb. 13, McConnell, R-Ky., and other GOP leaders quickly declared that the Senate should not confirm anyone to fill the seat until after a new president takes office in January.

With the letter Tuesday, the 11 committee Republicans rallied to that position, writing:
Because our decision is based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people, this committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next president is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017.
They said the current debate doesn’t present “a difficult or novel constitutional question.” As justification, they cited a statement made in 2005 by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.:
[The Constitution] says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote.
Senate Democrats accuse Republican colleagues of dereliction of their constitutional duty. Earlier Tuesday, Reid, now minority leader, called on Republicans to “do your job.”  He said: “Democrats [have] never stopped a Republican [Supreme Court] nominee from receiving a hearing and getting a vote on confirmation. Never.” In their letter, the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee counter that there’s no modern historical precedent for the Senate to confirm a nominee during a year when the country casts ballots for the next president:
Not since 1932 has the Senate confirmed in a presidential election year a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy arising in that year. And it is necessary to go even further back—to 1888—in order to find an election year nominee who was nominated and confirmed under divided government, as we have now.
Nine Democrats are on the Judiciary Committee, led by the ranking member, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont. “The president has already begun consulting with the Senate. After a nomination has been made, we in the Senate must then do our jobs,” Leahy said in a floor statement, adding:  
While it is rare that a vacancy on the Supreme Court arises during an election year, it is just false to say that justices do not get confirmed in presidential election years.  More than a dozen Supreme Court justices have been.
The most recent, Leahy said, was Anthony Kennedy, whom President Ronald Reagan nominated in Nov. 11, 1987 and who was sworn in as a justice on Feb. 18, 1988. Over the past 10 days, mostly while Congress was in recess, speculation mounted about a fracturing Republican conference when a few less conservative GOP senators said an Obama nominee should receive a committee hearing.

Hopes for that dimmed with the letter signed by Grassley and the 10 other Republican committee members: Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), David Vitter (La.), David Perdue (Ga.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.).

If Republicans ultimately are successful at blocking an Obama nominee, the Supreme Court will operate without a full bench for at least 332 days—more than 10 months.
The eight justices then would not be joined by a ninth until the Senate confirms the nominee of Obama’s successor, who takes office Jan. 20.
Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

Duct Tape Is A Correct-All Solution? : Finally Proof Is Found

imageEveryone says that duct tape is the answer to all of our problems when everything else you tried has failed.

I believe that saying has now been shown to be correct.

The Irish Breaking Barriers : Men V Women (Humor)

Okay, this is a little off color but non-the-less it's something to make you laugh or at least smile a little when most everything else going on around us is not laughable. Really, this is just one of the many scrimmages between men and women, especially after a night at the pub and story telling where truth and circumstance collide.

This is good stuff - enjoy. 

VOTED BEST JOKE IN IRELAND but read this with your best Irish accent:
John O'Reilly hoisted his beer and said, "Here's to spending the rest
of me life, between the legs of me wife !"
That won him the top prize at the pub for the best toast of the night !
He went home and told his wife, Mary, "I won the prize for the Best
toast of the night."
She said, "Aye, did ye now. And what was your toast?"
John said, "Here's to spending the rest of me life, sitting in church
beside me wife."
"Oh, that is very nice indeed, John!" Mary said.
The next day, Mary ran into one of John's drinking buddies on the
street Corner. The man chuckled leeringly and said, "John won the
prize the other night at The pub with a toast about you, Mary."
She said, "Aye, he told me, and I was a bit surprised myself. You
know, he's only been in there twice in the last four years. "Once I
had to pull him by the ears to make him come, and the other time he
fell asleep".

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Attorney General Lynch Attacks Free Speech : Gov Power Run Amuck

I guess we don't have to worry about what the AG is going to do about Hillary Clinton's email. What this looks like is selective prosecution - you go after those that don't fit your ideology and that of your boss and give a pass to those that do.

What exactly is anti Muslim speech? Does that mean if someone says they don't like Muslims or Islam they can expect to be attacked by the government? I wonder how the AG defines what constitutes free speech?

I find this just amazing that our government is positioning itself to defend our enemies against itself own citizens.

We are living in troubled times as the progressive socialists increase their desire for the power to change America. I wonder what the AG will do if the FBI proposes to indict Hillary?

Are we headed for a Constitutional crisis? Only time will tell.

ObjmaCare's Premium Chickens Home to Roost : You Voted For It - TWICE!

It seems the favorite attack by fellow Republicans now is 'you lied'. I think they must have taken this retort from a page out to the progressive socialist democrats play book that Objma uses all the time. Just remember of all the lies that Mr Objma told us about ObjmaCare.

We knew he was lying and so did he, but no matter, the damocrats all voted in lock step to bring it home. And now the chickens have come home to roost as Mr Objma minster, Rev Wright said about America and of her mistakes.

And dos it matter Mr Objma lied to us over and over again, not really, this is accepted behavior and  is true to form, he is a new wave democrat or worse, much worse.

Here’s Why Insurance Premiums Are ‘High and Rising’ for Obamacare Enrollees
Mariana Barillas               

Rising health insurance premiums under Obamacare will continue to hit Americans this year, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office. “High and rising premiums for private health insurance are a matter of concern for [Obamacare] enrollees. They also affect the federal budget, because the federal government subsidizes most premiums—directly or indirectly—at a cost of roughly $300 billion in fiscal year 2016,” the CBO said.

The nonpartisan agency and the staff of Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation projected that in 2016, “the average premium for an employment-based insurance plan will be about $6,400 for single coverage and about $15,500 for family coverage.” By 2025, they predict, average premiums for employment-based coverage will cost about 60 percent more than this year under the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.

Average premiums for individually purchased coverage aren’t expected to be as high, “mostly because nongroup coverage is less extensive and thus requires enrollees to make higher out-of-pocket payments when they receive care,” according to the Feb. 11 report.
Detail from a CBO chart shows the projected costs of single and family premiums. (Chart: Congressional Budget Office)
Details from the CBO's report show the project costs of premiums. (Photo: Congressional Budget Office)

The CBO, a nonpartisan agency, produces “independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the congressional budget process.” “Notwithstanding the exemptions, the [individual] mandate significantly reduces average premiums … by encouraging healthier people to obtain insurance, which lowers average spending on health care among the insured population,” the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation found.

However, the report says Obamacare regulations still will “increase premiums noticeably in the nongroup market,” and those affected represent only a small fraction of the private insurance market.
A 2009 analysis by the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation found that regulations similar to those of the Affordable Care Act would increase nongroup premium costs by 27 percent to 30 percent this year, “although other provisions would have reduced premiums.”   “This was their stance in 2009 and little has changed, as we observe increased premiums in the [insurance] exchanges and rising deductibles in many types of insurance,” Drew Gonshorowski, a senior health policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

“The CBO again reaffirms that regulations within the [Affordable Care Act] drive up premiums,” Gonshorowski said. The report also notes that the increase in premiums will cause employment-based insurance tax exemptions to cost more than $250 billion in fiscal year 2016 and about $40 billion for those who buy on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges.

Gonshorowski and Ed Haislmaier, Heritage’s senior research fellow in health policy, noted in a study that premiums jumped by 9 percent on average because of the health care law’s benefit mandates—which cover “essential health benefits” and “preventive services.”  If Congress eliminated the benefit mandates and requirements, the researchers estimated, “premiums for younger adults could be reduced by as much as 44 percent, and premiums for preretirement-age adults could decrease by about 7 percent.”