Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Texas Committee Passes Bill to Ban Abortions at 20 Weeks

life news ^ | Steven Ertelt

The House State Affairs Committee last night passed a pro-life bill to ban abortions in the state after 20 weeks of pregnancy and hold abortion facilities accountable for obeying health and safety laws.
The last attempt to pass the bill was halted in the state Senate with a pro-abortion filibuster but state Sen. Wendy Davis says she will not filibuster the bill a second time.
The bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks and hold abortion clinics accountable by making them meet basic health and safety standards that have closed facilities in other states that are unable to comply. The bill also requires all abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety regulations as an ambulatory surgical center, requires a doctor providing abortions to secure admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and lastly, requires a doctor to personally administer the abortion-inducing drugs to the patient.
The hearing saw the halls packed with over 2,100 people wanting to testify on the bill — with most of them pro-life and supporting it. The final count on the bill was 3,543 who registered a position with the Texas government computer system — 2,181 supporting the bill and 1,335 against it.
“In terms of witnesses, the system has never seen overload like this,” said Rep. Helen Giddings, the vice chairwoman of the House State Affairs Committee.
The state House is expected to debate the bill on July 9 after the Texas legislature returns from its Independence Day recess.
Texas Governor Rick Perry issued a call for a special session of the Texas legislature to pass the bill that a pro-abortion mob prevented the legislature from passing last week.
“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas. Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state,” Perry said. “Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn. Texans want a transportation system that keeps them moving. Texans want a court system that is fair and just. We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do.”
The Texas Tribune has more information on how the hearing went:
Over the objections of Democrats who said opponents of the bill crowded outside the committee room outnumbered the supporters, roughly the same number of witnesses from each side were allowed to testify. Supporters said the legislation would protect unborn children and women’s health, while opponents said it would drastically restrict access to a legal procedure.
“This is not about protecting women and our health, but about closing down clinics,” said one witness, who condemned Perry for using the “language of sexual violence” when he recently told a National Right to Life convention that the “louder [opponents of the bill] scream, the more we know we are getting something done.”
Said another witness who testified while holding a baby in her arms: “I speak on behalf of the children who will be missed, because they were murdered prior to be being born.”
After public testimony was closed at midnight, state Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, criticized Republicans for ending the hearing after having heard from fewer than 100 witnesses.
“The time clock has not run out on this special session, and I do believe the people who come here do have a right to have their voices heard,” Turner told the committee.
The bill, which Republicans have enough votes to pass, now moves to the full House.
Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst addressed the National Right to Life Convention in Dallas, Texas, on Saturday, affirming his commitment to passing protective legislation for mothers and their unborn children in the upcoming second special legislative session.
“I am not discouraged. We will pass this bill out of the legislature,” he said.
The filibuster was not the only impediment to passage of the bill — a noisy group of abortion advocates made it impossible for members of the Senate to conduct business and that may happen again — making it so Dewhurst will need to step up and regain control of the chamber so the bill can be debated and a vote taken.
Texas legislators on Monday filed a new bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks and hold abortion facilities accountable for breaking health and safety laws after a pro-abortion mob derailed the previous bill.
Abortion advocates protested at the state capitol but pro-lifers drowned them out with signing of Amazing Grace. The paid protesters opposing the late-term abortion ban in Texas are also doing more than rallying outside the legislature against the pro-life bill. They’re threatening pro-life state legislators and their staffers.
Call and email YOUR Representative and Senator starting on Monday with a simple message, “Please speak, stand, and vote FOR HB 2. My support will be significantly determined by the vote on this bill.” Visit this link to confirm your correct Representative and Senator:

If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border?

Hot Air ^ | July 3, 2013 | Allahpundit

An excellent question from Conn Carroll, especially in light of the news from CBO this morning that the Corker/Hoeven “border surge” will supposedly reduce illegal immigration by one-third to one-half. (The original Gang of Eight bill would have reduced it by just one-quarter.) That conclusion depends on a lot of assumptions, but the core assumption is that Obama will in fact enforce the new law as it’s written. Will he? He now refuses to enforce a key provision of his own signature legislation because it’s politically inconvenient for his party to do so. Come 2016, if Democrats are in trouble and desperate for Latino turnout, why wouldn’t he “delay” some of the Gang of Eight’s border provisions? Don’t forget, he’s taken unilateral action on immigration in the name of winning elections before.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obstetrician/gynecologist with more than 5,000 patients shuts down his practice because he doesn’t want it controlled by Obamacare bureaucrats

wordpress ^ | July 3, 2013 | Dan from Squirrel Hill

The Houston affilifate of ABC News reported that some doctors were shutting down their practices in response to Obamacare.

Dr. Robert WcWilliams, an obstetrician/gynecologist with more than 5,000 patients, said:
“It’s going to be run by bureaucrats – and it’s going to be run by politicians – who have no idea what is in your best interests, then I’m getting out.”
This is great. I’m glad he’s doing this. There’s no better way to protest against Obamacare than for doctors to shut down their practices.
Here’s the video of the news report:

If Obama Wants to Change Health Care Law, ‘He Must Come to Congress’

Cybercast News Service ^ | July 3, 2013 - 11:59 AM | Susan Jones

“If President Obama wants to make changes to ObamaCare, he must come to Congress,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said on Wednesday.

“Two years ago, the Obama Administration, through a memo from a Homeland Security Department bureaucrat, declared it would not enforce our nation’s immigration laws. Now the Obama Administration, through a blog post by an Assistant Secretary in the Treasury Department, is declaring it won’t even enforce its own health care law on employers. We live in a Constitutional Republic. We are a nation governed by laws written by Congress, not memos and blog posts written by bureaucrats,” King said. …

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Feds to Spend $900,000 Housing Homeless LGBTQ Queer Youth

Cybercast News Service ^ | July 3, 2013 - 3:56 PM | Melanie Hunter

The Department of Health and Human Services through its Administration for Children & Families plans to spend almost $1 million on “transitional living programs” for homeless lesbian, gay, lesbian, transgender and/or questioning (LGBTQ) youth.
“Each year in the United States, an estimated 1.6 million unaccompanied youth between the ages of 12 and 17 experience homelessness, which puts youth at a high risk for health, behavioral, and socioemotional problems compared to the general youth population,” ACF explained in its grant announcement.
“It is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of all homeless youth identify as LGBTQ,” the grant said. “This is disproportionate to the estimated percentage of LGBTQ youth in the general population, which is between 4 and 10 percent.” Youth that identify as LGBTQ “are more likely to run away or be rejected by their family due to lack of acceptance of their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression,” the grant said. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Officer who testified in Zimmerman trial wore questionable ribbons, including one from WWII


Doris Singleton of the Sanford PD wears questionable ribbons. (Photo credit: AP)
Is it shameful for the department to give the officer a World War II ribbon? (Photo credit: Associated Press)
While watching the Martin-Zimmerman trial this week, combat veteran and Navy Cross recipient, Jeremiah Workman noticed a particularly disturbing decoration on Doris Singleton’s Sanford Police Department uniform when she took the stand. Singleton’s uniform had two ribbons — theWorld War II Army of Occupation Medaland the Defense Distinguished Service Medal – which Workman knew could not belong to someone who had only served in the Army for three years.
“I worked at the Pentagon with Sgt. Maj. [Carlton] Kent and Gen. [James] Conway for two years and I was around every general in the Marine Corps. I know these high ribbons, I know just about all the ribbons anyways,” Workman told The Marine Corps Times.
Workman, a former Marine who fought in the second battle of Fallujah, posted a picture of the woman on Facebook with the caption, “Am I going blind or is this police officer in the Zimmerman-Martin trial wearing ribbons that she doesn’t rate? I see a WW II army occupation medal and a Defense Distinguished service medal. Wow! On the stand she was asked about her military career. She said army for 3 years. So she received in three years what a 4 star general receives after forty years of service. Wow. What a superb 3 year army career!”
Gina Harkins, who writes for The Military Times, saw the post and contacted Workman, who had already talked with the Sanford Police Department by telephone. He told Harkins that according to the conversation he had with a Sanford PD official, since the department doesn’t have their own awards system, they simply went to the Army-Navy store and picked out Defense Department military ribbons. The official also stated that they intentionally chose World War II ribbons because there are not many veterans still alive from that era and they did not think anyone would notice.
The response left Workman thinking, “So that makes it all better now because these guys are dead?” He told Harkins, “The fact that that was their response is still pretty shameful, I think.”
Shameful, indeed.
He questioned, “But what kind of professional police department would send Bob the patrolman around the corner to go pick out some ribbons for our officers to wear when they do something heroic or have good service over the years?”
Workman also said that the official told him that they were working to set up their own awards system.
The police chief, who is also an Air Force veteran, replied to Business Insider via email stating that they “apologize if any veterans were offended, and promise to rectify the situation.”
Also according the website, other veterans have emailed the police chief insisting that the use of the ribbons be immediately stopped.

Hospitals to Obama administration: Hey, throw us a bone here!


There are already too many questions to count swirling around the Obama administration’s sudden decision to delay the law’s clutch employer mandate until 2015; Mary Katharine andAllahpundit covered a fair few last night, among them: Uhm… can the Obama administration even do that?
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) characterized the move as the administration’s latest attempt to skirt Congress.
“This action raises a lot of questions about whether the Obama administration can simply ignore the law when it’s convenient for them,” said Roe, chairman of the Education and Workforce Health subcommittee, in a statement.
Roe said he will launch an investigation into the White House’s legal justification for the delay. He also asked Congress’s research arm to probe the decision.
“I don’t think any president has the authority to pick and choose what parts of law to follow,” Roe said.
And here’s another: As Philip Klein wonders at the Washington Examiner, how is this going to effect the subsidies provided to the individually insured via ObamaCare? Recipients would supposedly be required to show that their employer does not offer health insurance plans that meet the law’s standards before the the subsidies are handed down, but…?
Yet in its Tuesday announcement, the Treasury Department said it was not only delaying the implementation of the employer mandate, but also the employer insurance reporting requirements. If the Obama administration won’t be making judgments on whether employers are meeting the requirements of Obamacare, how can it assess individuals’ eligibility to receive subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchanges?
…perhaps administration officials believe there’s a way to tweak the reporting requirements without affecting the process for determining exchange eligibility. But it isn’t yet clear how they plan on resolving this issue.
And one more big one, for good measure: Now the hospital lobby is immediately piping up about the possibility of delaying an intwined provision of the law that will reduce their payments for uncompensated care by $56 billion over ten years (which is why they’ve been lobbying hard for Medicaid expansion throughout the states). President Obama already recommended in his budget that that provision be delayed until 2015, but sans the employer mandate, they’d like it very much if the Obama administration could push the date back until 2016. If the Obama administration can just decide to push back the employer mandate, then hey, why not this rule, too? Via The Hill:
The American Hospital Association (AHA) called on federal officials to put off looming cuts to hospitals that deal with mostly uninsured patients.
AHA President Rich Umbdenstock said hospitals could not be expected to operate with smaller reimbursements if employers are not going to expand coverage for another year.
“The goal of the [Affordable Care Act] was to extend coverage to the uninsured, which required a shared responsibility from all stakeholders,” Umbdenstock said in a statement. …
Umbdenstock emphasized that without a strong expansion of coverage, hospitals that serve the underprivileged do not deserve cuts under Medicare and Medicaid next year.
And a little exit question of my own: If ObamaCare is supposed to be President Obama’s “crowning legislative achievement,” and he leaves office with ObamaCare’s implementation still in shambles and/or the system imploding under its own weight, then… Well, you know.

ObamaCare Employer Mandate Delay to Save Dems From 2014 Midterm Election Backlash

Saving The Republic ^ | Jul 2, 2013

Mark Levin Goes Nuclear Over Obamacare Employer Mandate Delay to Save Dems From 2014 Midterm Election Backlash

“… devious, disgusting administration they play with our lives, they play with our healthcare, they play with our families!!”

The Great One was on a tear when the news hit the wire about the regime delaying the employer mandate. By making this move the scumbag imperial regime has just admitted how bad Obamacare is. This order by the imperial regime to delay the employer mandate is deliberate to save demoncrats from getting an ass whooping in the mid-term elections had the obaminable law gone into full effect. Now all of you with individual plans so sorry you are still on the hook, no waiver for you! Businesses on the other hand won’t feel the pain until 2015.
They are delaying the pain people will feel from this radical destructive law so no one will have it fresh in their heads when they enter the voting booth! It’s now up in the air for the people, that stayed home election day 2012, who would have felt the pain of Obamacare enough to get their butts into the polls in ’14!
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama facing crisis over incompetence!

Hotair ^ | 07/03/2013 | Ed Morrissey

Well, it could be worse. Voters could take in all of the scandals and controversies swirling around the White House lately — IRS, NSA, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, State Department cover-ups and obstruction of IG probes, and so on — and assume that the issue is corruption rather than incompetency. In that sense, Josh Kraushaar’s analysis might be good news, relatively speaking:
The administration is facing a crisis of competence. At a time when trust in government is already at an all-time low, the events of this past week illustrate the limits of this president’s power. The White House seems more comfortable stage-managing the news than dealing with the uncomfortable crises that inevitably crop up. (If there’s anything to learn from the Benghazi crisis, it was the administration’s attentiveness to detail in how to avoid blame in the aftermath of the crisis, but a lack of focus in how to react as the crisis was occurring.)
The other concerning sign, is that politics are getting in the way of smart policymaking. Wary of the last war in the Middle East, Americans don’t want the United States to intervene in Syria. The White House, heeding the polls, gladly obliged, even figuring out ways to forestall proof that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people – the red line that the president famously set. Obama doesn’t want to say anything to take sides between the Egyptian president he backed and the growing throngs of protesters – and then take ownership in a crisis that’s showing no signs of abating. Politically speaking, it’s a lose-lose situation.
On health care, with the 2014 midterms approaching and control of the Senate in play, the administration decided to buy time by delaying the employer mandate until after the elections. Former HHS spokesman Nick Papas said the delay was “about minimizing paperwork, not politics.” But it’s awfully politically convenient to delay implementation of a law that’s been growing more unpopular and whose implementation is shaping up to be a “train wreck,” in the words of Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat.
Kraushaar’s colleague Margot Sanger-Katz believes that the White House chose incompetence as the lesser of two evils on ObamaCare:
It shows that when it comes to the health care law — the president’s signature legislative accomplishment — the administration can’t win.
The White House appeased an angry business community with its decision to postpone a requirement that large employers offer their workers health insurance or pay a fine. The rule had angered even businesses that already insure their workers. It gave Republican opponents ammunition to attack the law, claiming it slowed economic growth. Its delay is likely to quiet some of those particular critiques, at least until after the 2014 election.
But the decision will still be politically useful to the health law’s political foes, who are now painting the administration as incompetent. A flood of press releases Tuesday night described the law as “unworkable,” its implementation a “train wreck,” and the delay as evidence that all of Obamacare should be taken off the books. “This is a clear acknowledgment that the law is unworkable, and it underscores the need to repeal the law and replace it,” said House Speaker John Boehner in a statement.
Sanger-Katz actually blames Congressional Republicans for forcing Obama to choose incompetence, because they made ObamaCare too “toxic” to amend properly. It wasn’t Republicans who shoved the ACA through Congress even though polls showed time and again that it wasn’t a popular bill, nor Republicans who used an arcane procedural tactic to pass it into law. Democrats made sure that Republicans had no stake in the final bill with their tactics and their rhetoric, so crying over a lack of cooperation from the GOP to rescue the bill from its original incompetence is just a little rich.
Speaking of incompetence, a new Pew poll suggests that Obama may be reaching the level of his predecessor, in terms of voter perception (via the Washington Examiner):
Public views of Barack Obama today are very different from those of George W. Bush at about this point in his second term.Obama’s job rating is in positive territory, while Bush’s tilted negative.
But a look at the one-word descriptions of the two men finds some common ground. Most notably, the word incompetentappears high on the one-word list for each.
In a recent Pew Research Center survey, conducted June 12-16, variations on the word good were used most often to characterize impressions of Obama. But incompetent shows up frequently as well. In fact, it tops the list of negative terms.
In July 2005honest was used most often to describe Bush, followed by incompetent and arrogant.
A couple of caveats are in order here. First, Pew warns that these aren’t percentages but the actual numbers from the responses of open-ended questions by the pollsters. In other words, it’s not that 27% of the 769 people asked about Obama called him “incompetent,” it’s 27 respondents that did, compared to 26 respondents for Bush that did. Obviously, that’s a very small percentage of the sample — 3.5% — and more or less meaningless in terms of measuring major trends in voter perception. Also, the Bush numbers come from a poll taken two months before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and a year before it became apparent that Iraq was spinning out of control, two events that greatly impacted voter perceptions of Bush’s competence.
The Obama administration has been damaged by the scandals of the past two months, but it’s still too early to see if they will cause the kind of long-term damage Bush suffered from those two chapters in his presidency. It may well be that incompetence is the better option in terms of perception for Obama and his White House, depending on what the investigations find.

"GRAPES OF WRATH" To be re made.

I am reading that the film "Grapes of Wrath" will be re made.

It’s a Dreamworks/Spielberg plan.

I am so heartily sick to death of the Hollywood smarmy and criminally skewed interpretation of American life and American history.
I don’t even want to think of the Liberal orgy of ‘I hate America’ this will be. All the while they are cashing in and living like royalty for ritually subverting the historical facts.
Capitalism works… the inevitable boom and bust cycles are what hard working people save for and the reason that credit should always be avoided like poison.
However, the entitlement mentality of generation after generation of Americans is by now a perfectly fertile ground for Spielberg to work is mediocre and mundane skill as a film maker.
Re hashing all the familiar socialist ideologies and serving them up for the idiots who couldn’t/wouldn’t read a book if their lives depended on it, is how he makes a living.
These films ought to be boycotted by every serf respecting Conservative.
Just for the record, I was a child when I saw the film and Henry Fonda has nauseated me ever since.

Maybe not so clever...ObamaCare Delay

Written by . Posted in 2014 CampaignsFeaturedIssue Watch
Published on July 03, 2013
obamaDoug Holtz-Eakin is one of the smartest guys out there when it comes to Obamacare, so I take his opinion seriously when he says that Obama has made a sharp political move by pushing off the employer mandate for a year:
Harm to health care, interrupted health insurance, bigger federal deficits, and brazen disregard for the law of the land sounds like a bad idea.  Why do it? 
Politics.  Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land.  Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better.
It helps with ObamaCare in other ways as well.  The administration was flailing to find high-profile allies (e.g., the National Football League) to advertise the wonders of ObamaCare.  In a single masterstroke it has given every company a reason to explain its existence (“don’t worry, you’ll be fine in the exchanges”) and created a de facto advertising campaign of enormous scale and reach.  Deviously brilliant. 
I can see how this might help Obama politically, but I’m not so sure this is brilliant — or if it is, I would consider it brilliant only in the sense that it averts an even worse failure. The administration isn’t doing this because it can — it’s doing it because it must.
First, as Phil Klein argues, you don’t delay something because it’s so wonderful. The delay, on its own terms, is a politically embarrassing admission that they’ve created a law that will make things worse. It won’t be hard to exploit that reality.
Second, this only invites further delays where the law allows. The official explanation of this is that it has to do with reporting requirements. That’s highly doubtful. When you look at all of the municipal governments that are part-timing their workforces in order to escape the employer mandate, it’s problematic nature becomes clearer. There might have been a realization at some level that this was going to counteract stimulus efforts to bail out city and state governments. 
Third, as Holtz-Eakin also notes in his statement, this move is highly likely to encourage patient-dumping from good but expensive company health plans into exchange plans. If a lot of dumping does occur, that could prove politically costly. That whole business about how if you like your insurance you can keep it? Yeah, not so much. This could help Republicans reach out to middle-class employees at big companies, 
And finally, it was never the purpose of Obamacare to move already-insured people into health-insurance exchanges. The purpose was to ensure the uninsured. And by dropping the employer mandate, the administration is making its this goal more difficult to fulfill.
Until yesterday, employers faced a choice as of this coming January between providing insurance or paying a fine. Absent the employer mandate, the businesses that don’t currently provide it to employees now have no incentive to start doing so until 2015, and in fact it probably have a disincentive to offer it until at least then, if even then.
So how many people get stuck in a situation where exchange premiums are prohibitively high, they’re not eligible for a big enough subsidy to put it within their reach, and their employer still doesn’t offer health insurance? Those in this situation now aren’t buying insurance in the individual market at lower rates — what makes you think they’re going to buy it on the Obamacare exchanges for higher rates? And what will people be saying about this law when it doesn’t result in a huge surge of newly insured?

- See more at:

According to Harvard, if you use a smartphone, you might be a wuss! ^ | 7/3/13 | Jeffrey Bausch

Size of a device and body posture while using it influences assertiveness
Researchers at Harvard Business School have published a study suggesting that the use of devices with small screens can cause people to have less assertiveness than those using larger-screened devices.

Now, before every self-doubting man reading this article goes out and purchases a Samsung Galaxy Note or other phablet, here’s an explanation, straight from the abstract of the group’s paper, “iPosture: The Size of Electronic Consumer Devices Affects Our Behavior”:
"Grounded in research showing that adopting expansive body postures increases psychological power, we hypothesized that working on larger devices, which forces people to physically expand, causes users to behave more assertively."
So it’s actually a combination of two things: the smaller device causes users to hunch over and be more “mousey” while interacting with the device. Repeating this physical behavior for long stretches throughout the day, in turn, has an effect on one’s behavior.
Here’s how they were able to determine this: 75 participants were randomly assigned tasks to perform on variously sized devices, including an iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro, and iMac.

Once the tasks were completed, the researcher told the participant: "I will be back in five minutes to debrief you, and then pay you so that you can leave. If I am not here, please come get me at the front desk." The researcher then waited up to 10 minutes to return.
The group discovered that participants who had been using smaller devices took longer to fetch the researcher than those using larger devices. Specifically, of those using a desktop computer, 94% got up to fetch the researcher. Only half the group using the iPod Touch got up and left the room.
The team determined that smartphone and tablet users tend to hunch over their devices and contract their bodies. Desktop users, on the other hand, tend to have a more open posture.

Chart displays the percentage of device users who left the room to retrieve the researcher.
Now, the purpose of the study is not to necessarily rid the world of small devices. Instead, the point of all this can be gleamed from how the group concluded their study:
"Many of us spend hours each day interacting with our electronic devices. In professional settings we often use them to be efficient and productive. We may, however, lose sight of the impact the device itself has on our behavior and as a result be less effective. We suggest that some time before going into a meeting, and obviously also during it, you put your cell phone away."
Story via: 



A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots!

A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots
by Jeff Foxworthy:

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
What a country!
How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

Our Friends


Coal Miners


Where in the world?


Man of "Steal"


Mexican's Needs


Cat and Mouse


In the morning!




Obama Moon


Audit Her!




I had no idea!


The Truth


Obama warns Africans not to improve their lifestyle because ‘the planet will boil over’ if they do! ^ | July 2, 2013 | Jeff Dunetz

You have to feel bad for the people of Africa. After all, we are the sad saps who elected Barack Obama. Nobody in South Africa chose Obama to be their leader. Yet they are forced to listen to his lectures. Yesterday, he told them that because of global warming they have no right to modernize their lifestyle:
Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.”
That’s interesting. This president it is working so hard to promote the global warming hoax he doesn’t believe people in Africa should have a big house, a car, or AC.
The president’s comments, made the day before unveiling his ‘Power Africa’ initiative for a ‘sustainable’ African energy strategy, came while speaking at University of Johannesburg-Soweto.
According to Obama, global warming constitutes ‘the biggest challenge we have environmentally,’ one greater than all other environmental calamities like ‘dirty water, dirty air.’
However, the President’s statements do not reflect statistics released by the United Nations; Based on a data released in October, 2012, the World Health Organization estimated that ‘Global warming’ is responsible for approximately 140,000 excess deaths each year.
Of course those estimates don’t take into account that world temperatures haven’t increased in 15 years, but why should logic be a part of the argument?
By comparison, as many as three million people died from indoor and outdoor air pollution — in other words, over 20 times the number of alleged victims of global warming, according to the Word Health Organization.
The list of victims of unclean drinking water is even more staggering.
According to UNESCO, unsanitized water causes billions of preventable diseases annually, from diarrhea (4 billion), cholera (120,000), malaria (300-500 million), intestinal parasites (25% of world’s population), typhoid (12 million), trachoma (6 million), and schistosomiesis (200 million). list from highest to least affected
Here’s the fun part: The president is going to give Africa $7 billion to stimulate the alternative energy sector in Africa so they can have disasters like Solyndra and Fisker.
‘In partnership with African nations, we’re going to develop new sources of energy. We’ll reach more households – not just in cities, but in villages and on farms. We’ll expand access for those who live currently off the power grid. And we’ll support clean energy to protect our planet and combat climate change,’ President Obama said Sunday at the University of Cape Town.
While the United States is facing a $17 trillion dollar deficit and cancelling programs left and right because of the sequester, this president believes we can afford to donate $7 billion Africa to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist. Meaning climate change.

Sarah Palin is the new conscience of the Republican Party!

The Washington Times ^ | July 2, 2013 | Danny de Gracia

Sarah Palin didn’t actually say she was planning a departure from the Republican Party during a controversial weekend interview, but her hint that the GOP could lose future supporters over amnesty was more than enough to throw the political establishment into gossip frenzy.

“If the GOP continues to back away from the planks in our platform, from the principles that built this party of Lincoln and of Reagan, then yeah, more and more of us are gonna start saying you know, what’s wrong with being independent – kinda with that libertarian streak that much of us have, in other words we want government to back off and not infringe upon our rights,” Palin told FNC’s Uma Pemmaraju.
“I think there will be a lot of us who start saying, GOP if you abandon us, well, we have nowhere else to go except to become more independent and not enlisted in a one or the other of the private, majority parties that rule in our nation, either a Democrat or Republican. Remember these are private parties and, uh, no one forces us to enlist in either party.”
Just a day earlier, Palin had posted on Facebook a status update that “Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democratic Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American” (sic).
The GOP establishment should take careful heed of these rebukes. Rather than listening to overpaid, gimmicky consultants and campaign managers, Republicans need to start listening to Palin.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obamacare Employer Mandate Delayed Until 2015 (reason disclosed)

Political Realities ^ | 07/03/13 | LD Jackson

Employer MandateCertainly, the big news of this week is going to be the delaying of the Obamacare employer mandate. Strangely enough, or not, it has been delayed until 2015. Ostensibly, this is after the mid-term elections that are looming on the horizon. Coming from the Treasury Department, the announcement was a surprise to most people. I would wager it was not a surprise to the people in the administration who are in charge of implementing this disaster waiting in the wings. I suspect they have known about this for more than a few days and were waiting for the right moment to announce it. A holiday week seems like the right time to go into damage control mode.
The reasons given for the delay are innocuous enough, at least on the surface. This comes from a White House blog post.
The Hill - In a White House blog post, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett wrote that the administration believed it needed to give employers “more time to comply with the new rules.”“This allows employers the time to test the new reporting systems and make any necessary adaptations to their health benefits while staying the course toward making health coverage more affordable and accessible for their workers,” Jarrett wrote Tuesday evening.
Jarrett also wrote that the delay would help in “cutting red tape and simplifying the reporting process.”
“We have heard the concern that the reporting called for under the law about each worker’s access to and enrollment in health insurance requires new data collection systems and coordination,” Jarrett said. “So we plan to re-vamp and simplify the reporting process.”
Remind me again, how long has it been since Obamacare was signed into law? That would be March 2010. That means the Obama administration has had over three years to roll out the different portions of the law. By some counts, the Department of Health and Human Services has created 20,000 rules and regulations to implement Obamacare. And yet, they still haven't figured out how to make the employer mandate work. They feel the need to re-vamp and simplify a reporting process that isn't even in effect. I would contend this is another great example of why the dislike many of us have for big government is deserved. I can't help but laugh when I hear a government official make the claim that Obamacare is going to make our health care system more efficient.
The employer mandate isn't the only part of Obamacare that is in trouble. Even Senator Max Baucus, one of the principle authors of the legislation, sees the train wreck that is coming down the road. The health care exchanges are set to start operation on October 1, 2013, but no one is really sure how they are going to work. Once they were given the opportunity, many states have opted out of the exchanges. Their primary concern is the cost of the program. That concern is legitimate, given the states can not simply print more money out of thin air.
Could it be that the Obama administration has seen this coming for months? Is it possible they are now bowing to the pressure they are feeling from the companies that are under the employer mandate? Maybe they are giving political cover to the Democratic members of Congress who they feel are vulnerable in the 2014 mid-term elections? How the delay of the employer mandate would provide political cover escapes me, given that many of the Democrats in question were responsible for shoving it down our throats in the first place. I suppose that should serve to remind us of the short-term memory loss that afflicts so many voters in America.
If it sounds like I am skeptical of the motives at play with this delay, then I must be getting my point across. It has been almost four and a half years since Barack Obama moved into the White House. After watching how he operates in that time, I believe my skepticism has been well-earned.

Obama Voters


Vietnamese Wives

Go Outside!

Your Teeth


eMail and Bacon