Remember, only Republicans commit voter fraud…(according the The Ministry of Truth)… 🙂
La Raza has been busy distributing an informative infographic to help people find polling places that do not require identification to cast a ballot. Efforts to get out fraudulent votes aren’t even happening in the shadows anymore, it seems.
The pro-amnesty Hispanic activist organization the National Council of La Raza helpfully promoted a Washington Post article explaining which states people can vote in without having to use a photo ID.
The Chicago chapter of Asian Americans Advancing Justice tweeted Blake’s article with the message, “Reminder — #Illinois does NOT require #voterID to cast a ballot,” along with the pro-Democrat hashtag #TurnOutForWhat. The tweet was helpfully retweeted by the National Council of La Raza.
It’s just a helpful guide, not a guide to how to and where to cheat the system for your own benefit, yeah that’s the ticket.
After all, if this didn’t exist all those illegals and multiple voters would live in fear of not being able to vote and that’s “voter suppression” and we can’t have that now can we!
And those evil, racist Voter ID laws…
Every warm body should be able to vote for a Democrat! 🙂
Legally, who cares about that, it’s about beating those evil Republicans before they destroy America and kill people! 🙂
Remember yesterday when the Dems were all happy about how wonderful ObamaCare was regardless of the facts…
The Affordable Care Act was supposed to make health care more affordable, but a newly released study of insurance policies before and after Obamacare shows that average premiums have skyrocketed, for some groups by as much as 78 percent.
Average insurance premiums in the sought-after 23-year-old demographic rose most dramatically, with men in that age group seeing an average 78.2 percent price increase before factoring in government subsidies, and women having their premiums rise 44.9 percent, according to a report by HealthPocket scheduled for release Wednesday.
The study, which was shared Tuesday with The Washington Times, examined average health insurance premiums before the implementation of Obamacare in 2013 and then afterward in 2014. The research focused on people of three ages — 23, 30 and 63 — using data for nonsmoking men and women with no spouses or children.
The premium increases for 30-year-olds were almost as high as for 23-year-olds — 73.4 percent for men and 35.1 percent for women — said the study, titled “Without Subsidies Women & Men, Old & Young Average Higher Monthly Premiums with Obamacare.”
“It’s very eye-opening in terms of the transformation occurring within the individual health insurance market,” said Kev Coleman, head of research and data at HealthPocket, a nonpartisan, independently managed subsidiary of Health Insurance Innovations in Sunnyvale, California.
“I was surprised in general to see the differences in terms of the average premiums in the pre-reform and post-reform markets,” Mr. Coleman said. “It was a higher amount than I had anticipated.”
The eye-popping increases among younger insurance buyers could be a problem for Obamacare’s long-term solvency given that young people are needed to offset the higher costs associated with older policyholders.
“Obviously they’re very important, and as much as they’re healthier, they tend to use health care less, so you want to try and have as many of those people enrolled as possible. And the cost for them went up very [steeply],” Mr. Coleman said.
The price increases for 63-year-olds were less dramatic: a 37.5 percent increase on average for women and 22.7 percent for men.
The study doesn’t include the federal premium subsidies offered to those earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty limit, but Mr. Coleman points out that not everyone in that bracket qualifies because their premiums must exceed a certain percentage of their income.
“So you still have this issue of health insurance rising for that very young group and, depending on where they are with respect to income and premium, they may not qualify for a subsidy,” Mr. Coleman said. “That’s what we like to refer to as a subsidy gap.”
The report also notes that somebody pays for the subsidy, even if it’s not the policyholder.
“Another important consideration in the discussion of subsidized premiums is that the subsidized portion of the premium still must be paid by the government through the money it collects from the nation,” says the study. “In other words, the subsidized costs of health insurance do not disappear but instead change payers.”
A spokeswoman with the Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment because she had not yet seen the report.
The reasons for the premium increases start with the ACA’s prohibition on rejecting applicants with pre-existing conditions, which means that insurance companies must account for the additional costs of covering chronically ill or disabled people.
Another cost driver is the heightened benefit mandate. The ACA requires insurance policies to include 10 “essential health benefits,” including pediatric dental and vision care, maternity care and newborn care, even for policyholders with no children or whose children are adults.
“If you’re expanding the services you’re covering, and you’re increasing the number of less healthy people in your risk pools, that’s going to increase costs,” Mr. Coleman said. “Attendant to that would be an increase in premiums to be able to appropriately cover those costs.”
He also noted that the study doesn’t weigh policies based on enrollment, meaning that it includes the costs of insurance plans that may have few enrollees.
The report examines premium costs from the two largest metropolitan areas of each state, using data from public insurance records obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services. (WT)
It’s ok, the Liberals won’t even notice their Holy Grail has a hole in the bottom of it the size of the Grand Canyon.
The New York Times on Monday featured a huge news package claiming that ObamaCare is delivering on all its main promises. But the Bible of the liberal press has badly misled its flock.
‘After a year fully in place,” the Times story begins, “the Affordable Care Act has largely succeeded in delivering on President Obama’s main promises.” So case closed, right? After all, a team of New York Times “reporters and data researchers” came to that conclusion.
Just like the “consensus” on Global Warming. The Left has proclaimed their Agenda is perfect and right and that’s it. The End.
In a word, no. To claim success, the Times gets things wrong or ignores the law’s most glaring failures.
The uninsured rate has gone down? It’s true that several private surveys show a decline in the uninsured rate this year. But how much of this is due to ObamaCare and how much is due to the fact that millions of people have found work since early 2013?
The Times doesn’t even try to answer that question, even though the long-term census survey shows a connection between job growth and uninsured rates.
Meanwhile, most of those who did gain coverage didn’t get it from a private insurance company. They went on Medicaid. That isn’t what Obama or anyone else pushing ObamaCare had promised.
More affordable? The Times claims that ObamaCare has made insurance affordable for many, “but not for all.” Well, if you spend $1 trillion in subsidies, then yes, some are bound to get a break.
But ask anyone who’s been forced to buy an ObamaCare plan after his old insurance was canceled, and he will probably laugh at the Times’ conclusion.
Even in California, which wholeheartedly embraced ObamaCare, the state’s insurance commissioner found that average premiums for those who had coverage before ObamaCare rocketed 22% to 88%.
In any case, the law came nowhere near fulfilling Obama’s promise of a $2,500 cut in premiums for the average family.
Improving the nation’s health? There’s simply no way to draw any conclusions about that so early in the game. What you can say is that having insurance doesn’t equal improved health.
A comprehensive study published in the New England Journal of Medicine made that abundantly clear. It found that people on Medicaid were no better off healthwise than the uninsured.
A working ObamaCare exchange? The fact that the federal exchange is still unfinished despite spending more than $2 billion over several years would constitute an epic failure in any private business. That’s not true, unfortunately, in big government.
The Times also concludes that the health care industry is better off today than it was before ObamaCare was passed. But since when was that a priority of Democrats, who sold the law by demonizing insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and drug companies?
What’s more, the Times simply ignores other “main promises” that have unquestionably failed. Anyone remember Obama’s oft-repeated “keep your plan” promise? Or the one about how it wouldn’t add a dime to the federal deficit?
A new Senate report concludes the same thing that IBD did back in July 2013 — that ObamaCare will add red ink in its first 10 years, thanks to lower-than-expected revenues, unrealistic budget cuts and various “fixes” since it was passed.
And what about the promise that ObamaCare wouldn’t affect those who get coverage at work? Even the Times has occasionally reported on the disruptions the law is causing — companies dropping coverage, cutting hours, putting off hires. ObamaCare architect Ezekiel Emanuel predicts it will destroy the employer market altogether.
Essentially, all that the New York Times has done is lower the bar enough for ObamaCare to crawl over and declare victory. (IBD)
But that’s what you have to do hen the Party can’t be wrong and the Agenda must succeed no matter what and anyone who disagrees must be a “hater”. 🙂
ON OCTOBER 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage. On Oct. 15, county clerks in the state for the first time issued marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Then, five days later came startling news out of the Idaho resort town of Coeur d’Alene: Two Christian ministers, owners of the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, had reportedly been told by local officials that they were now required to perform same-sex weddings, or risk fines of up to $1,000 and as much as six months in jail if they refused. Under the city’s antidiscrimination ordinance, the Hitching Post is considered “a place of public accommodation,” and refusing to marry couples on the basis of sexual orientation was no longer a legal option.
So the two ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, filed a lawsuit, seeking to block the city from forcing them to host same-sex ceremonies in violation of their sincere religious beliefs. “The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted, and sent to jail,” their attorney told reporters.
At first blush, the story seemed to confirm the grimmest forebodings of those who have warned that the gay marriage juggernaut will roll right over religious liberty concerns. Was the government really threatening to jail clergy who refused to perform same-sex weddings?
The lawsuit, filed Oct. 17 in federal trial court by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, stoked long-held fears among opponents of marriage equality.
“The day liberals promised would never come is already here,” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council warned in a press release announcing the lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of Donald and Evelyn Knapp, two ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.
Mike Huckabee, former presidential candidate and Southern Baptist minister, weighed in on Facebook: “Remember when same-sex marriage activists used to claim that it would never infringe on other people’s religious beliefs? Well, that was a lie.”
But Coeur d’Alene isn’t ruling out the possibility, either. Only if the Hitching Post truly operates on a not-for-profit religious basis, City Attorney Michael Gridley wrote in an Oct. 20 letter, would the Knapps be legally exempted from the antidiscrimination ordinance “like any other church or religious association.” Conversely, if their wedding chapel provides services “primarily or substantially for profit and they discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation,” they could be cited for breaking the law.
Should they be?
Religious convictions haven’t sheltered florists, bakers, and other vendors who have declined to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies. The Supreme Court earlier this year let stand the penalty imposed on a New Mexico photographer who turned down a request to shoot a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that wedding chapels, like bakeries and photo studios, are bound by nondiscrimination law, regardless of the owners’ moral beliefs. By that argument, it makes no difference that the owner of a company is an ordained minister. An operation like the Hitching Post isn’t a ministry, the ACLU would say, it’s a business — and the First Amendment can tell the difference.
Yet there is considerably more to the First Amendment than the unique protection it extends to churches. The freedom of expression it enshrines secures the right to speak no less than the right not to speak. Time and again the Supreme Court has confirmed that government may not force Americans to utter words they disbelieve or deny.
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,” Justice Robert Jackson wrote in a landmark 1943 decision that struck down a law compelling students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, “it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Whatever one’s views on same-sex marriage — or on nondiscrimination statutes generally — it is unfathomable that ministers could be forced by law to pronounce the words of a marriage ceremony against their will. That they are being paid to perform the ceremony doesn’t diminish the significance of the words they are saying, or erode their constitutional liberty to choose not to say them.
Supporters of same-sex unions have nothing to gain by forcing anyone, least of all clergy members, to officiate at weddings when it would violate their principles to do so.
Yes, they do. They have the satisfaction of sticking it to the “haters” and stroking their “entitled” “civil rights” ego.
That is “just something we don’t do in a liberal society,” insists Andrew Sullivan, a stalwart advocate for gay marriage. Concerns about what “marriage equality” is doing to religious tolerance and dissent run deep; surely the best way to allay those concerns is with respect and goodwill. As same-sex wedlock comes to Idaho, it is in everyone’s interest that freedom of speech and conscience not be driven out.
But then they don’t get the thrill of the ego that they have gotten in other place around the country where THEY HAVE forced those evil, discriminatory, Christians to bow down to their Lawyers and Judges on Speed Dial.
“I think there are a lot of people in this country who have anxiety about what marriage equality is going to mean for them, and there’s a widespread misperception that changes to the marriage laws or discrimination laws are going to mean faith leaders are forced to perform weddings they don’t want to perform,” said Amanda Goad, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Tell that to the Farm in NY or the T-Shirt shop owner in Kentucky…
P.s. Liberal Compassion (from Huffington Post): “It’s such a heartbreaking challenge to be martyred these days. Just ask the Knapps They’ve done everything in their power – built crosses for themselves, climbed into position, and set-up nail guns pointed at their hands and feet. How much longer must they beg for someone passing by to please, please, just pull the trigger? ”
“Religious organizations in this country enjoy immense freedom from taxation, civil rights laws, public accommodation laws, etc. The claim that they are being persecuted is sillier than me claiming there are winged children flying around doing good deeds for humanity.”
“Religion and stupidity go together like bread and butter.”
“Christians” pretending to be “persecuted” if they can’t persecute others and finding out”Oh wait, we CAN still persecute…” but let’s fund raise and promote bigotry anyway…”
Remember this from the last campaign season..
and the dead on Parody of it…
Well it’s back!
The Liberal Meme about how everyone and everything is not only dependent on Government, but that Government creates everything anyhow.
So Government running your life is not only good, but it’s the way the universe should work and anyone who says differently is an evil, capital, elite corporate “hater” of middle class and poor Americans!
Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”
“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” Clinton said.
“You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics,’” she continued. “That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
“You know, one of the things my husband says when people say ‘Well, what did you bring to Washington,’ he said, ‘Well, I brought arithmetic,’” Clinton said, which elicited loud laughs from the crowd.
That would be the arithmetic of When in Debt Spend EVEN More!! And when you take in more in taxes than ever before, you spend even more!
Now that’s Liberal Math!
I bet she forgets her husbands Budget Deal with the Devil in the late 1990’s. It was a satanic deal, after all, and ruined the economy.
So what if this President will spend more than every President combined, at least he’s not a Corporate America Hack who just want to suck your life’s blood from you for his own ends! 🙂
Corporate America is Evil!
Only Government is GOOD!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
FEAR IS HOPE!
There’s a word for complete government control of everything….
In a totalitarian society, all control of public and private life are government run.
Because YOU Didn’t Build That! 🙂
YOU Didn’t Build that! You don’t Create Jobs!
ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN DO THAT!
Pelosi 2010: Unemployment Checks Serve As “Job Creator”
“It injects demand into the economy,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said of unemployment checks.
“It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”
Pelosi calls unemployment checks a “stimulus” that is a “double benefit” helping “those who lost their jobs” and at the same serves as a “job creator”
“It’s impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say ‘we’re not going to have unemployment benefits,'” Pelosi said.
SO YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT!
Government did! 🙂
We are From the Government and we are here to help you!
A Dinosaur sized info dump was laid yesterday. If you want to bury a story release it on Friday, especially so that the Ministry of Truth can kill it by Monday.
So we have Your friend and mine, “Fast & Furious”.
Obama and had the documents buried in the filing cabinet. You know the ones where Holder shared potential classified internal emails with his wife and mother and Obama issued 30 executive orders to try and keep it hidden.
Judicial Watch announced today that it received from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) a “Vaughn index” detailing records about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. The index was forced out of the Obama administration thanks to JW’s June 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and subsequent September 2012 FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)). A federal court had ordered the production over the objections of the Obama Justice Department.
The document details the Attorney General Holder’s personal involvement in managing the Justice Department’s strategy on media and Congressional investigations into the Fast and Furious scandal. Notably, the document discloses that emails between Attorney General Holder and his wife Sharon Malone – as well as his mother – are being withheld under an extraordinary claim of executive privilege as well as a dubious claim of deliberative process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act. The “First Lady of the Justice Department” is a physician and not a government employee.
This is the first time that the Obama administration has provided a detailed listing of all records being withheld from Congress and the American people about the deadly Fast and Furious gun running scandal. The 1307-page “draft” Vaughn index was emailed to Judicial Watch at 8:34 p.m. last night, a few hours before a federal court-ordered deadline. In its cover letter, the Department of Justice asserts that all of the responsive records described in the index are “subject to the assertion of executive privilege.”
The Vaughn index explains 15,662 documents. Typically, a Vaughn index must: (1) identify each record withheld; (2) state the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption. The Vaughn index arguably fails to provide all of this required information but does provide plenty of interesting information for a public kept in the dark for years about the Fast and Furious scandal.
Based on a preliminary review of the massive document, Judicial Watch can disclose that the Vaughn index reveals:
- Numerous emails that detail Attorney General Holder’s direct involvement in crafting talking points, the timing of public disclosures, and handling Congressional inquiries in the Fast and Furious matter.
- President Obama has asserted executive privilege over nearly 20 email communications between Holder and his spouse Sharon Malone. The administration also claims that the records are also subject to withholding under the “deliberative process” exemption. This exemption ordinarily exempts from public disclosure records that could chill internal government deliberations.
- Numerous entries detail DOJ’s communications (including those of Eric Holder) concerning the White House about Fast and Furious.
- The scandal required the attention of virtually every top official of the DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Communications to and from the United States Ambassador to Mexico about the Fast and Furious matter are also described.
- Many of the records are already publicly available such as letters from Congress, press clips, and typical agency communications. Ordinarily, these records would, in whole or part, be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Few of the records seem to even implicate presidential decision-making and advice that might be subject to President Obama’s broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton criticized President Obama and his disgraced Attorney General in a statement today:
This document provides key information about the cover-up of Fast and Furious by Attorney General Eric Holder and other high-level officials of the Obama administration. Obama’s executive privilege claims over these records are a fraud and an abuse of his office. There is no precedent for President Obama’s Nixonian assertion of executive privilege over these ordinary government agency records. Americans will be astonished that Obama asserted executive privilege over Eric Holder’s emails to his wife about Fast and Furious.
Once again, Judicial Watch has proven itself more effective than Congress and the establishment media in providing basic oversight of this out-of-control Administration. This Fast and Furious document provides dozens of leads for further congressional, media, and even criminal investigations.
On June 28, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives over his refusal to turn over records explaining why the Obama administration may have lied to Congress and refused for months to disclose the truth about the gun running operation. It marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting Attorney General was held in contempt of Congress.
A week before the contempt finding, to protect Holder from criminal prosecution and stave off the contempt vote, President Obama asserted executive privilege over the Fast and Furious records the House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed eight months earlier. Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request two days later. Holder’s Justice Department wouldn’t budge (or follow the law), so JW filed a FOIA lawsuit on September 12, 2012.
But then the Justice Department convinced U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates to stay our lawsuit, in part to allow ongoing settlement discussions between the Holder’s government lawyers and the House Committee to continue. Unsurprisingly, the “negotiations” between politicians running the House and the Justice Department went nowhere.
Fed up with the interminable delay caused Holder’s gamesmanship and stonewalling, JW renewed its request to the Court to allow our transparency lawsuit to continue. Thankfully, this past July, Judge John D. Bates ended the 16-month delay and ordered the Obama administration to produce a Vaughn index of the alleged “executive privilege” records by October 1. Judge Bates noted that no court has ever “expressly recognized” President Obama’s unprecedented executive privilege claims in the Fast and Furious matter.
Unhappy with having to produce the records prior to the elections, Justice lawyers asked the judge to give them one extra month, until November 3 (the day before Election Day!) to produce the info. Judge Bates rejected this gambit, suggested that the Holder’s agency did not take court order seriously. Rather than a month, Judge Bates gave Justice until yesterday to cough up the Vaughn index. Judge Bates issued his smack down on September 23.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced his resignation two days later.
Many share our opinion it was “no coincidence” that Holder’s resignation came “on the heels of another court ruling that the Justice Department must finally cough up information about how Holder’s Justice Department lied to Congress and the American people about the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, for which Eric Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives.”
On September 9, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, citing Judicial Watch’s success, ordered the Justice Department to produce information to Congress by November 3.
Fast and Furious was a DOJ/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “gun running” operation in which the Obama administration reportedly allowed guns to go to Mexican drug cartels hoping they would end up at crime scenes, advancing gun-control policies. Fast and Furious weapons have been implicated in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of other innocents in Mexico. Guns from the Fast and Furious scandal are expected to be used in criminal activity on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border for years to come.
Guns from the Fast and Furious scandal continue to be used in crimes. Just last week, Judicial Watch disclosed that a Fast and Furious gun was used in gang -style assault on a Phoenix apartment building that left two people wounded. We figured this out from information we uncovered through another public records lawsuit against the City of Phoenix.
Congress officially confirmed the AK-47 was used in the assault that terrorized residents in Phoenix. In an October 16 letter sent from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) to Deputy Attorney General James Cole discloses that “we have learned of another crime gun connected to Fast and Furious. The [Justice] Department did not provide any notice to the Congress or the public about this gun….This lack of transparency about the consequences of Fast and Furious undermines public confidence in law enforcement and gives the impression that the Department is seeking to suppress information and limit its exposure to public scrutiny.”
We have many other active lawsuits over the Fast and Furious scandal:
On October 11, 2011, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ and the ATF to obtain all Fast and Furious records submitted to the House Committee on Oversight.
On June 6, 2012, Judicial Watch sued the ATF seeking access to records detailing communications between ATF officials and Kevin O’Reilly, former Obama White House Director of North American Affairs at the U.S. National Security Council.
On September 5, 2013, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ seeking access to all records of communications between DOJ and the Oversight Committee relating to settlement discussions in the Committee’s 2012 contempt of Congress lawsuit against Holder. The contempt citation stemmed from Holder’s refusal to turn over documents to Congress related to the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal.
On May 28, 2014, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ on behalf of ATF Special Agent John Dodson, who blew the whistle on Operation Fast and Furious and was then subjected to an alleged smear campaign designed to destroy his reputation.
And the fun never stops…