ObamaCare the Predator; Victimizes Medicare

20140227-180709.jpg

To fund Obamacare, current and future Medicare payments have been cut substantially – and as a result, 30% of Medicare Advantage recipients across the country will face rate hikes as high as $90/month, lose benefits, and may even lose their doctors. Much like the millions of cancelled plans and premium hikes that have already happened to us, the Democrats completely own this debacle. We must put an end to these policies by electing a Senate Republican Majority that can put an end to the Obama agenda.

You’ve heard this story before:

Democrats make promises about Obamacare. Those promises later fall to pieces. Senate Democrats are left to explain whether they didn’t know the details of what they supported, or if they simply lied to voters.

This time, it is Medicare recipients who fall victim to ObamaCare.

Contribute here to Take Back the Senate!

20140227-180752.jpg

Obama VS. Putin?

20140226-223613.jpg

By
contributing writer: Nancy Doyle

Every time I hear a news report seemingly describing Obama and Putin as “at odds” it makes me cringe. Remember President Obama leaning over to Dmintry Medvedev, then President of Russia just prior to the 2012 American election? He proclaimed to Dmitry on a hot microphone; “Tell Vladimir I’ll have more latitude after the (2012) election”. More alarming was the disinterest the media seemed to show regarding this. There was no demand for explanation from Obama. No one screaming on the White House lawn at the President “What did you mean, Mr. President?” “What was it you needed more latitude for, Mr. President?

Imagine if that had been Reagan, Bush 41 or 42? Secret service would have had formed a riot gear barrier to keep the press away. It would have been a mob scene! But nobody asked him about that.

Now, fast forward to today and where does the United States stand on the world stage? Putin, a steely-eyed macho strutting, bare chested, KGB operative is the world’s statesman? Everything that Putin wants, Obama lets him have. Obama and the US looks weak, Putin looks dominant.
It’s reminiscent of a pit bull and a toy poodle, and Obama is not the pit bull! Putin barks, Obama shows his neck. Obama removed the missiles out of Turkey, mark a win for Putin. Syria is gassing it’s population, Putin is moved into the position of “peace maker” by Obama. Syria has not turned over its chemical weapons, another win for Putin. Iran is dangerously close to developing a nuclear weapon, another Putin ally, and the United States sits by while Obama continues to gut, slash and burn our military capabilities. Big win for Putin. Putin is so emboldened he is lining troops and massive amounts of weaponry along the border of Ukraine. Meanwhile John Kerry (AKA “ Lurch”) puts out a “stern” warning to Putin; “ There will be “grave consequences” if Putin doesn’t respect the sovereignty of Ukraine. Yeah, like he respected Poland’s? I say all of this saber rattling back and forth between Obama and Putin is pure theater for American consumption. If you look between the lines, Putin and Obama are best buds!

And that’s all I have to say about that!
Nancy Doyle, pontificator at large.

20140226-223522.jpg

20140226-223553.jpg

Just Say No To Gun Control

20131211-065246.jpg

A Harvard Law study proves that Gun Control does not stop violent crime, in fact, around the world, where there are more guns there is less crime. Read this and forward it to the people that need to see it, we all have friends, neighbors and relatives that need to hear this.

The incident in Connecticut was devastating, of course, but stricter gun laws are not the magic solution to preventing future tragedies. Emotion must be put aside to objectively assess the effectiveness of strict gun laws. The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that stricter gun control does not yield lower crime.

If gun control were effective, Chicago would be the safest city in the country. Prior to 2013, Illinois was the only state where carrying a concealed weapon was illegal. In December, federal judges struck down the ban, ruling it unconstitutional. But now Illinois lawmakers are working to pass other gun regulations, like an assault weapons ban. Despite a history of strict gun policies, Chicago is one of the nation’s most violent and deadly cities. In 2012, there were over 500 gun-related deaths in Chicago. That is up over 10 percent from the rate in 2005. Gun control is clearly not working in the Windy City.

Houston is similar to Chicago in socioeconomic factors like population, density, and racial segregation. Both cities are plagued with drugs and human trafficking. Chicago and Houston are America’s third and fourth most populous cities, respectively, each with between 2 and 3 million residents. Non-whites make up 50-60 percent of the population in both places, and the poverty levels in each city are almost identical at just under 30 percent. Yet in 2012, there were only 217 murders in Houston — less than half of Chicago’s death toll. A major difference between the two cities: Houston has very few gun laws. Criminals there know that many citizens are well armed for self-protection.

The major news networks are not reporting it. Read it, share it, forward it, talk about it, this is vital. Gun Control Doesn’t Work.

Thank you for your continuing support and dedication to the Second Amendment. Please share this short article because in it is the Harvard Law Study which I referred to.

Unemployment in America Today

20131201-112021.jpg

At Least 27 Million Americans are ‘Underemployed’

While the official unemployment rate last year was 8.1 percent, a far greater percentage of working-age Americans were “underemployed.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the underemployment rate in 2012 was 14.7 percent, amounting to 23.1 million people.

Underemployed Americans include those who are officially considered unemployed, plus involuntary part-time workers and “marginally attached” workers — those who have not looked for work within the last four weeks but have sought a job within the last year and are available for employment.

About 2.5 million people were marginally attached workers last year, and 8.1 million were involuntary part-time workers.

As troubling as that may be, the actual figures are likely much worse, according to a report by Wendell Cox for NewGeography.com.
For instance, Gallup estimated that the nation’s underemployment rate stood at 17.4 percent in August, meaning that there are more than 27 million underemployed workers.

Also, economists at the Center for College Affordability and Productivity have estimated that 48 percent of college graduates who are employed hold jobs that do not require a college degree. These are not included in the underemployment figures. If they were, the underemployment rate would soar.

Nevada had the highest underemployment rate during the year ending on June 30, 19 percent, followed by California with 18.3 percent. The lowest rates were in North Dakota at 6.2 percent and South Dakota, 7.8 percent.

“The productivity gap that results from underemployment constrains the U.S. economy at a time of unusually severe financial challenges,” observes Cox, visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

“College graduates face not only a grim employment market, but have student loan repayments that require good jobs,” he adds.

“Yet things could get worse. The soon to be implemented Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has a built-in incentive for employers to shift workers to part-time status” or to hire part-time workers to avoid the mandate to provide health insurance to full-time workers.

Infrastructure Spending Won’t Produce New Jobs

President Barack Obama and prominent members of Congress have called for a significant boost in infrastructure spending on roads and bridges to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

But a new report from The Heritage Foundation asserts that those calls “misunderstand” the nature of infrastructure construction work.

“Infrastructure projects are capital intensive, not labor intensive,” James Sherk writes for the foundation.

Repair and replacement of traffic arteries require a relatively small number of highly skilled workers using advanced equipment, he points out.

Slightly more than 300,000 Americans nationwide work in highway, street, or bridge construction, and they comprise just two-tenths of a percent of all workers. So even doubling their numbers would have only a minor effect on overall employment.

The highly trained employees who work on infrastructure can require years of on-the-job training before they are fully trained. A structural ironworker, for example, needs three to four years and from 6,000 to 8,000 hours of training.

Therefore, few of the currently unemployed workers have the requisite skill and training to work on infrastructure projects. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only 13,500 unemployed cement masons, concrete finishers, and terrazzo workers in the entire nation.

“Additional infrastructure spending would consequently employ relatively few unemployed workers,” according to Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

“Instead, federal construction contractors would hire the skilled workforce they need away from private construction projects,” he said. “New jobs created would come primarily at the expense of other jobs in the private sector.”

He concluded that the new spending called for by Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., and others “would do more to shuffle jobs around than reduce unemployment.”

Footnote: America’s infrastructure quality has actually improved significantly over the past two decades, and the number of structurally deficient bridges has fallen steadily since 1992.

20131201-112055.jpg

Obamacare Passed by Democrats

20131031-080904.jpg

In 2010, a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, without a single Republican vote, passed “ObamaCare” by a margin of 219 to 212. In a staggering act of misfeasance, hardly a single member had read, let alone studied, the 1,900 page law (2,700 pages according to some authorities), which had been dumped into the House only days earlier. The 219 members of that House who voted for ObamaCare were willing to impose massive, and massively expensive, legislation on the American people without any real idea of what they were doing. Had those members been members of the board of directors of a private corporation, their complete and utter lack of due diligence would almost certainly have exposed them to enormous law suits and, quite possibly, criminal penalties.

Largely in consequence of the passage of ObamaCare, the House of Representatives elected later in 2010, contained a substantial Republican majority, which was continued in the elections of 2012, despite Obama’s reelection, and is the basis of the Republicans’ present control of the House.

Today, the Republican majority in the House is exercising its constitutional power over the federal government’s spending by insisting on excluding any funds for the implementation of ObamaCare in the coming fiscal year. This is actually an extremely modest exercise of the House’s power over the budget. It should be seen as giving the Democrats in the House and Senate an opportunity finally to read and study the law they have passed (along with the 20,000 pages of government regulations that have already been written in order to carry out its provisions). Moreover, the elections of 2014 will give the supporters of ObamaCare a chance to present their case to an electorate that can then decide the issue by determining the makeup of the next Congress.

However, instead of agreeing to this very modest and thoroughly justified proposal, the Democrat leadership of the Senate has dug in its heels in a fanatical defense of ObamaCare, to the point of closing down major portions of the federal government in order to implement it, irrespective of not knowing what it is and irrespective of its consequences. The Republican majority in the House does not want to shut down the federal government or have it default on the national debt (which could happen later this month). It is fully prepared to fund the federal government and has repeatedly done so, with the single exception of ObamaCare. It is for the sake of maintaining ObamaCare that the Senate Democrats have shut down the federal government.

The House Republicans could hold fast, even to the point of a default on the national debt, for which the supporters of ObamaCare, not they, would be responsible, if it took place. Their first obligation is to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect its citizens from a government that knows no limits to its reach and power, as manifested in ObamaCare.

Yes, terrible consequences can result from upholding principles. The United States has fought wars in order to uphold the principle of individual freedom. The House of Representatives should be willing to risk a default on the national debt to uphold that same principle today.

Few people in public life today have any principles, neither Democrats nor Republicans. I always tell people “I’m an equal opportunity offender. Both parties have let us down” Most of them are concerned with nothing beyond favorable “photo-ops” and their standing in the latest public opinion polls. They change their views as though they were outfits of clothing, to be changed whenever doing so will make them look better by some undefined standard. In the same way, they will talk with anyone and negotiate with anyone, no matter how evil and vicious, if they believe that doing so can improve their popularity.

This should imply that if the Republicans do hold fast, the Democrats will yield. The only thing that makes this assessment uncertain is that it well may be that the Democrats in the Senate hate individual freedom and love the augmentation of government power more than they hate or fear anything else. They well may hate liberty more than they fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian religious fanatics or North Korean Marxist fanatics. And if that is the case, then while they would meet and negotiate with the Iranians and North Koreans and in some ways agree to their demands, they will not be willing to be as accommodating to the House Republicans and thus will be willing to bring about an actual default on the national debt.

The only way to deal with this possibility is for the Republicans to do everything in their power to make sure that the American people understand what the issue is. Namely, responsible, knowledgeable legislation consistent with the principle of individual freedom, or reckless, power-grabbing legislation of a kind enacted by Congressmen who might as well have been drunk or asleep as far as their votes for ObamaCare were concerned.

If the American people can be made to understand this, then even a default on the national debt will serve as the basis of a great victory and be well worth the price. It would establish a turning point in American history: the point at which the relentless advance of government power was stopped by unyielding, principled opposition – thank you Ted Cruz.

There are signs that here and there in the Republican Party, there are some men of principle, men who understand what is at stake and are prepared to do whatever is necessary to remove the legislative debacle that is ObamaCare. If their existence can be confirmed by their behavior in the coming months, it will be remarkable indeed, representing a virtual evolutionary leap in the ranks of our country’s politicians. We will see what happens at the next budget battle.

Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner’s pledge, reported in The New York Times of October 5, to avoid default, implies that the Republican opposition would collapse, isolating whatever men of principle there may be in the Republican Party. The pledge not to allow a default should have come from Harry Reid, the Democrat majority leader of the Senate. Yet, somehow, Reid and the other supporters of ObamaCare are thought to be free of any obligation to avoid a default. Only the opponents of ObamaCare are thought to be under such obligation.

This perverse inequality of obligation is taken for granted as proper in the media and probably by most of the general public. Barring some unforeseen development, it will almost certainly result in yet another Republican capitulation rather than in the great victory that is possible if the Republicans stick to their principles. Let the Democrats and the media think of these Republicans as lunatics if necessary. They are almost always prepared to humor lunatics through compromise. This time, let them compromise their statist principles by giving up ObamaCare for the next fiscal year, for the sake of avoiding a default on the national debt. Surely, there is no moral basis for maintaining a law that was passed by men who did not and could not know what they were doing and which as more is revealed about it, can only be expected to wreak great harm.

Facts obtained by:
George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics(Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996; Amazon Kindle Edition, 2012). His website is www.capitalism.net. His blog is www.georgereismansblog.blogspot.com. Copyright © 2013 by George Reisman.

Redeem The Dream: Blacks n America Today

Democrats use Black voters

Blacks in America need to redeem the dream.

BLACKS & THE DEMOCRAT PARTY:

I wonder how many whites feel disenfranchised because people who thought they were voting for the agent of hope & change later found out it was a case of bait & switch. President Obama is a racist. Obama is not who he portrayed himself to be. All you need do is look around you. Obama takes every opportunity to pace the race card, he wants blacks to stay down and out. He wants you dependent on government. In my humble opinion Obama is the worse kind of Uncle Tom. Rather than espouse ways for you to do better, he rather wallow in self pity, and he encourages that among the black population. Those of you who thought Obama would bring hope & change found all he brings is misery. All he talks about is how down trodden you are. Oh boo hoo. You can’t make it because of your race. Well then why don’t we all just throw our hands up and say “that’s it, I can’t do any better”. That’s what President Obama and the democrat leadership encourage. They encourage it with their words, they encourage that defeated attitude with their policies. If you support the democrat party you may as well just give up because you cant do it on your own without the help of government. That is what the democrats stand for today.

It’s hard to turn blacks against Obama’s policies. They revere him for achieving the great heights of presidency and completely ignore what a poor leader he’s been.

A friend said to me “Blacks don’t vote republican because they mistrust the Republican Party?” My question? Why don’t they mistrust the democrat party? That’s the party that was in power for 50 years, the party that’s  kept blacks in ‘their place.’ So to speak. Taught Blacks dependency and segregated them in the projects in the name of “affordable housing” for years.

I resent what the democrat party does to minorities. Blacks should stand up and shout “we shall overcome” ala Martin Luther King Jr and get out of their predicament and become whole. Blacks need to JOIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY & dare I say it, Join the TeaParty movement.  If they want to overcome their poverty and dependency they need to DO something different because the Democrat party is not your friend.

That’s what angers me about the Al Sharptons of the world. They have the bully pulpit but use it to continue to perpetrate victim hood.

Blacks are blinded by the lies of democrat party, and don’t realize they’re being patronized to stay down. Whites in the democrat party have mastered the new slavery and blacks in democrat leadership are the new Uncle Tom. I’m not picking a fight but those are the facts

More Facts on race relations since Obama took office:

Recently in the Daily caller said that Public attitudes about race relations  plummeted since the historic election of President Barack Obama, according to a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Only 52 percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks have a favorable opinion of race relations in the country, according to the poll, which has tracked race relations since 1994 and was conducted in mid-July by Hart Research Associations and Public Opinion Strategies.

That’s a sharp drop from the beginning of Obama’s first term, when 79 percent of whites and 63 percent of blacks held a favorable view of American race relations.

Negative views on race relations have also increased substantially. According to the poll  45 percent of whites and 58 percent African-Americans now believe race relations are very or fairly bad, compared with 2009, when  only 20 percent of whites and 30 percent of blacks held an unfavorable view.

Although the NBC/WSJ survey addressed the politically fueled Trayvon Martin controversy only obliquely (asking how the acquittal of George Zimmerman in Martin’s shooting death had affected respondents’ views of the legal system), the survey’s historical time frame — which shows the steepest declines in positives and increases in negatives coming in the last two years — suggests the firestorm over the Martin case played a role in diminishing the high solidarity between whites and blacks that was exemplified by Obama’s election.

A View From the Right

20131001-130217.jpg

Written by D.Craig

I continue to feed the mouth of society with an organized labor force that I coordinated and produced. I exploited my organized labor force to the maximum. Why? So that my company, my entity, my extension of my-self can become more self-reliant and independent. A socialist would digress. A communist would puke.

I know it’s hard for the left to understand. Clearly, the left has become the employee-faction rather than the John-Galt faction. I get that. (inb4 Ayndroid)

Dear leftists, I beg you – please, do not hate on people for having the ability to self-produce value. It is the very people you hate which gives you these internets you exploit. These computers you type. These things are not made by your ideas. Your socialist ideas. Your humanitarian ideas. These things exist so that the “Self” can grow.

Oh, my sweet sweet leftists, you can do it too, but it would seem that you’re too non-individualist to do it. Instead, you lean on people like myself to help feed Society (social security) programs (your public restroom of sorts) so that you can sit on Facebook bitching about how the game is rigged, and nothing is fair.

I get it, bro. I get it. You’re a sad man with no skills outside of your slave-driven service/labor.

I get it, bro. I get it. I am ruining your utopian beliefs by being an individual. I understand….

Congress & Obamacare, They Are Getting A Better Deal

20130811-182127.jpg

A common saying during the 2008 health care debate regarding Onamacare was “At the end of the day, I figure if it’s good enough for Congress, it’s good enough for the American people,” then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said at an Arizona campaign stop in January 2008, referring to the Democrats’ plans for reform.

Members of Congress and their staff currently get their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. However, to make Democrats eat their words, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, added an amendment to the Affordable Care Act requiring congressmen and their staff to get their insurance the same way many Americans will starting in 2014, thanks to Obamacare — through the state-based health care exchanges. Democrats embraced the idea, willing to stand by their assertions that the exchanges would offer quality insurance.

The proposal put Congress in a tough spot: The business exchanges starting next year will only cater to small businesses — an entity as large as Congress wouldn’t be able to join the exchange system until 2017 at the earliest. There will also be exchanges next year for people purchasing insurance on the individual market, but it wouldn’t make sense for someone with employer-provided insurance (like a congressional staffer) to join that market. Ryan: “More effective ways” to repeal Obamacare than gov’t shutdown House votes to stop IRS from implementing Obamacare.

When Obamacare passed in 2010, the provision raised a number of questions: When would members of Congress and their employees be subject to this new rule? Would staffers purchasing their insurance on the new exchanges still get their coverage subsidized by their employer, the government?

On 8/7/13 Wednesday, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued new proposed rules. OPM suggested, among other things, that congressional offices should determine for themselves which staffers must abide by the
new rule, since some staffers spend more time working for leadership offices (which are exempt from the rule). It also says that employees getting insurance through the exchanges could still get employer contributions to their premiums, as others on the employer-based exchanges would.

The rulings should ease concerns of lawmakers (both Democrat and Republican) who were worried their lower-paid staffers would quit if forced to pay more for health insurance. “I think it is self-evident that it’s part of their compensation here is that they would have health care,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said last week.

At least one lawmaker, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., thinks it’s outrageous that congressional offices can choose which staffers are exempt from the new rule, and that staffers will still have their coverage subsidized.

“These recent maneuverings inside the beltway are precisely why the American people rightly despise Congress,” Vitter wrote in a pair of letters to congressional leaders and President Obama on Wednesday. “OPM’s ‘solution,’ demanded by leading Members of Congress and crafted behind closed doors, is being viewed as an act of self-dealing special treatment – and rightly so.”

Vitter said that when Congress returns to Washington in September, he’ll be “fighting for a legislative fix” to require all congressmen and their staff — as well as administration officials — to purchase insurance on the exchanges without subsidies. Vitter writes that “no ordinary American at that income level buying on the Exchange would receive any government subsidy, much less one worth approximately $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for a family, under the OPM rule for Congress only.”

However, if an entity like Congress joined a small-business exchange, it could determine how much to contribute to employees’ premiums and it could also get tax credits to cover that cost. People buying insurance in the individual market next year will also get subsidies for the exchange, if their income falls between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (and taking into account factors like family size). For an individual, 400 percent of the poverty level amounts to about $46,000 a year. The average salary for House staffers this year comes to around $58,000 a year, but as mentioned above, these staffers wouldn’t be purchasing insurance on the individual market.
In other words, the administrative fix proposed by the OPM wasn’t designed to give Congress a better Obamacare deal than regular Americans; it was meant to address the fact that the rule putting Congress and congressional staffers on the exchanges never properly fit into the scheme of Obamacare. The bottom line? Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the “Obamacare” health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago. They get a better deal than you do.

20130811-182148.jpg

What Al Sharpton Won’t tell You

20130723-100823.jpg

In May 2013, thirteen-year-old Arvind Mahankali correctly spelled the word “knaidel” (a German-Yiddish word for a dumpling) to win the 86th Scripps National Spelling Bee. (I being the word smith I am thoroughly appreciate this) Mahankali had finished third each of the two previous years. In both of those years he was eliminated when he failed to correctly spell a German-derived word. In preparation for his third attempt at the prize, Mahankali diligently worked to strengthen his area of weakness. “This year I prepared German words and I studied them, so when I got German words this year, I wasn’t worried,” he said after his victory.

No one has yet invented a way to magically acquire knowledge or anything else worthwhile without effort. If we are going to learn what we need to know to succeed in life, whether in school, our career, our family, or even our hobbies, we are going to have to devote the time and effort required to gain the skills and knowledge we need…and then continue to devote the time and effort required to maintain what we have learned. Renowned concert pianist Vladimir Horowitz said in an interview that if he skipped one day of practice he could tell a difference in his performance. I’m no musical genius but I too notice a difference in my level of performance when i skip a couple of days at the gym therefore If he skipped two or three days, other top-notch pianists could tell. And if he skipped a week, members of the audience would notice.

We need to take learning seriously. A person who is dedicated to acquiring skills and information on the job will quickly stand out from his peers. All you need do is a little more thanks expected of you in any job and you will quickly be a superstar on the job, the go to guy. The last one standing after everyone else is fired. A parent who is serious about gathering the tools to more effectively meet his children’s needs will reap great benefits in his children. A Christian dedicated to studying and applying God’s Word will gain wisdom. We must obey the admonition of 2 Timothy 2:15: “Study to show yourself approved…”

Take the business of acquiring and applying knowledge seriously, and you will be on the path to success. This is what you won’t hear from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other ‘grievance industry’ peddlers.

Stop telling blacks how bad they’ve got it and tell them what they should do to succeed.

20130723-100846.jpg

Boston Bombing Person Of Interest Visits WH

20130710-174023.jpg

Abdul Rahman Alharbi, once a person of interest in the Boston Marathon bombing, turned up at the White House for July 4th festivities. He was at one time placed on a watch list and was at one point labeled a threat to national security by the State Department. What in the world was he doing in the White House on the 4th if July? This president makes a mockery of all our American values.

20130710-173932.jpg