Monday, January 6, 2014

The Dishonesty of Democrats' Push for an Extension of Unemployment Benefits ^ | January 6, 2014 | Katie Pavlich 

As lawmakers get ready to settle back into their seats on Capitol Hill after the Christmas recess, the battle over the extension of unemployment benefits is back on the table.
For months, in an effort to shift focus away from Obamacare, Democrats have argued that the economy is recovering and that jobs are being created.
But if this is the truth, then why is it necessary to continue the extension of unemployment benefits? Here's Harry Reid's push for an unemployment benefit extension on CBS Face the Nation Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Cracker Barrel waitress receives the tip of a lifetime! ^ | 1/5/14 | PETER SALTER 

The Cracker Barrel customer had a checkbook, and what he wrote in it after lunch Thursday would make his happy server even happier, but first he and his friend had a few questions.

They asked the hostess: Can you give us your grumpiest server? We want to make them laugh.

Sorry, the hostess said. Nobody grumpy here. I’ll seat you with our happiest.

At Table 222, they asked Abigail Sailors for the special — turkey and dressing — and for eggs and sausage.

Then they asked the 18-year-old why she was so happy.

And over the course of their meals, she told them.

About her childhood. The youngest of five from Falls City was just 7 months old when her parents crashed their car on the back roads to St. Joseph, Mo. Her mother never fully recovered from her brain injury, and her father wasn’t fit to be a father.

They were scattered to three foster homes, then reunited under the same roof. They endured abuse there for years, said Abigail’s older sister, Sydnie Murphy. That foster father is still in prison.

“All the horror stories you hear about foster care,” Sydnie said, “we lived through it.”

The state split them again — some to other homes, Abigail and Sydnie and a brother eventually to their father’s house. But then he was arrested for abuse, too.

They didn’t find real stability until about nine years ago, when John and Susi Sailors took them in. And kept them. And raised them. And loved them like they love their own five children.

“It’s a great home, great people, amazing,” said Abigail, who took their last name. “I don’t know how I would have turned out if I didn’t have them. They shaped the person I am today.”

Abigail still sees her birth mom. In fact, she and Sydnie were picking her up at her rehabilitation home in Omaha and taking her out for pizza Thursday night.

After she talked about her past, Abigail told her customers about her future. Which was on hold. She had just finished her first semester at Trinity Bible College in North Dakota, where she’s studying youth ministry and psychology.

But she’s paying her own way, and didn’t have enough money for the spring semester. So she was saving her wages and tips to add to her financial aid, and planned to return next fall. She was thinking about taking online courses until then.

“She’s always been a good worker and paid her own bills and saved her money,” her foster father said. “She’s a great girl. It’s amazing where she is from, what she’s been through.”

And that — all of that — was why she was so happy, the server told her customers.

Her life could be worse. But it isn’t.

“I’m just thankful. Everything we went through, my attitude is: God blessed me with a lot of things. I’m doing good. That’s all that matters to me.”

The customers — one older, one middle-aged — kept asking questions. Abigail kept answering. She didn’t know them. They weren’t regulars at the north Lincoln restaurant. She did learn they were from Nebraska, and she learned their names, but didn’t feel right sharing them.

When the men were finished eating, one told her he had graduated from Trinity.

He opened his checkbook.

He wrote one check to the college for $5,000, for her tuition.

He wrote one check to her for $1,000, for whatever she needed.

He left a $100 tip she split with another server.

And Abigail, who’d felt like she already had so much, now had even more.

“I couldn’t believe it. I tried to thank them, and they said, ‘thank God.’”

Former WH Official Acknowledges Obama's 'Maybe' Not Good at Governing

The Weekly Standard ^ | 1/6/2014 | Daniel Halper 

CNN report Peter Hamby reports on a recent conversation he had with a former White House official: "I talked to a former Obama White House person, just before Christmas, when Obama was sort of adrift, figuring out what to do, his poll numbers were pretty low. And he said, 'Look, the president needs to find an issue to campaign on. This is what he's good at. He's really good at campaigning. Maybe not governing,' according to this Democrat," Hamby said this morning on CNN.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Media support of ACA nothing short of Communist Propaganda

Patriot Update ^ | January 4, 2014 | David Risselada 

There was a great article at the Save America Foundation recently. The author does a great job detailing the collusion of big government and the media as they attempt to give the impression that Obamacare is a colossal success. While it can be argued that many people are awakening to the totalitarian nature of the ACA, it can also be said that the fight for restoring liberty is about to take an ugly turn. In this article, David Mckalip points to the facts that a refusal to enroll in Obamacare is now being portrayed as unpatriotic, selfish and a failure to contribute to the greater good. The socialists in our government are trying to cover up their failures by hiding behind compassion, while completely ignoring the damage they are causing. This is setting a dangerous tone because many Americans cannot recognize that they are being fed communist propaganda, and it shows to what depths the depraved media will go to support their commissar in chief. 
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How the Obama administration dismantled American government!

The Daily Caller ^ | January 5, 2014 | Ken Hoagland 

Obamacare is a flea bitten dog that never would have been enacted without wholesale and deliberate falsehoods said over and over again by Barack Obama and every Democrat cheerleader. It never would have been enacted without legislative sleights-of-hand and backroom bribes offered to key Democrats.
It never would have been enacted and Barack Obama would likely not have won a second term without the willing negligence of a toothless “watchdog press” who refused to independently investigate or report obvious lies.
Now we will be bitten by this dog and indeed, as many as five million people who have lost insurance (that they liked) have already felt the teeth. It will get worse. Although not widely reported, another 100 million Americans with workplace coverage (by HHS’ own estimates) may be dropped by employers and forced into more costly coverage through security-challenged exchanges.
Many of those already forced into Obamacare have seen their trusted doctors dropped from networks and even with subsidies, deductible thresholds so high that savings are just a fiction. Another fiction. And those people with severe illnesses who have been canceled and lost the best hospitals and specialist care may have already been condemned to death by their own government “helping them”.
As the American people absorb body blow after body blow from this destructive fraud, our system of government has, itself, been battered so that this President can have his “signature” issue....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Will TSA Agents be Replaced by Machines?

dVice ^ | Wednesday, January 1, 2014 | Robin Burks 

hal 9000 photo: Hal 9000 hal_9000b.jpg
Will TSA agents be replaced by machines?
One of the main reasons that Americans hate to fly is the Transporation Security Administration (TSA). Not only is it annoying to have to strip down at security checkpoints, submit to the occasional patdown and stand in long lines to verify our identities, but the entire system is inefficient. So what happens if we take humans off of those jobs and use machines instead? Several European airports are looking to answer that question by installing eye and face scanners, along with fingerprint readers, at security checkpoints.
Many airports’ immigration checks have used these measures, but the idea of using biometric technology at security checkpoints is still relatively new. The move would take humans out of the equation and let machines, which don’t succumb to things like getting tired on the job, take care of ID’ing flyers instead. Airline industry officials believe this automation will make air travel better, keep flyers happier and make security more efficient. And obviously, using biometrics could also save the industry a lot of money.
So how does a biometric security checkpoint work? London’s Gatwick airport, which performed a trial earlier this year, started by getting rid of boarding passes altogether. Eye scans verified fliers, allowing security cameras to identify them not only for the security checkpoint, but also for their boarding gate. Next year, London’s Heathrow airport and Amsterdown’s Airport Schiphol will start using a new baggage-screening technology that will take humans entirely out of the process. According to experts, these new machines use algorithms that are more likely to find explosives than a human.
As you can imagine, this idea of replacing man with machine isn’t going well with some. Some would argue that a machine can’t identify things like behavioral patterns and that such machines are predictable, meaning that terrorists could outwit them. Others believe this unlikely as biometrics is harder to fake than a boarding pass. The naysayers also can’t argue with the statistics: when Amsterdam Schiphol tested its facial recognition scanners, the machines were right 98 percent of the time and only allowed 1 out of 1,000 false identities through the system. No numbers are available for similar human statistics, but these numbers are impressive.
More than likely, though, no TSA jobs will be lost when these systems go live in U.S. airports. Industry officials expect that using biometrics at security checkpoints will free up TSA agents to focus their time and abilities on watching for suspicious behaviors. Needless to say, these new measures will speed up getting through airport security, and that makes this technology, along with faster carry on luggage screeners, a very good thing.

Why NFL Players Don't Wear Sleeves Even In Dangerously Cold Games

Business Insider ^ | Jan. 5, 2014, 12:21 PM | Jay Yarow 

Perhaps you've heard it's going to be cold during today's Green Bay Packers game against the San Francisco 49ers.
Perhaps you've also heard that "cold" is an understatement. says it will feel like -17 degrees during the heart of the game.
In weather like that, the beer in the stands can freeze before it's consumed. In weather like that, your hands go numb, your chest tightens, and just breathing the air can cause a burning sensation. It's just not weather designed for human beings.
And, yet, they will play football in this weather, because the NFL doesn't cancel games that are too cold.
And crazier still, many of the people playing in today's game will be out there in short sleeves, thin spandex pants, a jock strap, some pads, a t-shirt, a helmet, socks, shoes, and nothing else.
Why do NFL players refuse to wear sleeves, even when it's dangerously cold out?
Former Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has a great story up at Fox about he dealt with the cold weather.
Here's his explanation of why players don't wear sleeves:
One of the game-day rules for the Bears and Ravens -- and I would imagine any mentally tough team -- is that there are no long sleeves allowed under your jersey. That reinforces a mentally tough state of mind and it also is used as an intimidator to the opposing team, like a gorilla pounding on his chest in jungle saying "look at me I don't need sleeves in the cold."
But, let's just say you're not an insane person. You're not scared to wear sleeves. What happens to you? You'll probably get crap from some teammates. But at least you won't freeze to death.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Vacaying Multi-Millionaire Obama Blasts GOP That Went Home for the Holidays & Abandoned Poor

Indepebndent Journal Review ^ | January 5, 2014 | Kyle Becker 

It must be nice to a president who has overseen one of the worst recoveries in the modern era, who then moralizes those who think job creation is preferable to endlessly issuing government checks backed by paper money and nearly insurmountable debt.
But such is the life of vacationing multi-millionaire Barack Obama, who gets to look down at us while he drives by in a golf cart as small businesses are imploding in the wake of his disastrous policies. Meanwhile, the poor keep getting poorer, and the rich keep getting richer.
Dave Urbanski of The Blaze reported on the haughty message of the president towards those trying to impose some fiscal discipline on the spendlustful Democratic-dominated Congress. He cites the president’s Weekly Address, which contains some real chestnuts of holiday cheer:
"Just a few days after Christmas, more than one million of our fellow Americans lost a vital economic lifeline – the temporary insurance that helps folks make ends meet while they look for a job. Republicans in Congress went home for the holidays and let that lifeline expire. And for many of their constituents who are unemployed through no fault of their own, that decision will leave them with no income at all."
"We make this promise to one another because it makes a difference to a mother who needs help feeding her kids while she’s looking for work; to a father who needs help paying the rent while learning the skills to get a new and better job. And denying families that security is just plain cruel. We’re a better country than that. We don’t abandon our fellow Americans when times get tough – we keep the faith with them until they start that new job."
Whatever people may say about the declining unemployment numbers, the labor participation rate is at its lowest since the late 1970s. That means most of the unemployment decline is people exiting the labor force or going into retirement. There have been some hints that hiring could pick up, but ObamaCare and increased taxation will continue to dampen hiring; especially due to the uncertainty caused by the looming 2015 employer mandate (which has been unconstitutionally suspended).
Here is a clip of the president’s weekly address, where he charges the GOP with callousness:
So, what about all the hardship your policies are causing, Mr. President? There is increased stress in many middle class families from higher health insurance premiums, dropped plans, shifting doctors, small business requirements, new regulations, and ever more taxation. That is causing a lot of poverty, isn’t it? Are you saying you love the poor so much, Mr. President, you’re willing to create millions more of them with disastrous policies?
This may come as a shock, but there are people who disagree with the welfare state on the grounds that it spreads poverty throughout a nation. It just doesn’t strike many people as “compassionate.”

The National Marriage Act of 2015 and (caution: serious snarking in article)

American Thinker ^ | 1/6/2013 | Lee Cary 

As global warming becomes settled science and ObamaCare successes mount, it's time for the D.C. central planners to fix marriage in American.
The current rash of warm temperatures across the nation is reviving the call for a national carbon credits system. Recently, it was so warm in New York City that the city's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, threatened to remove his clothes before the local media.
Meanwhile, some patients are discovering that the benefits of ObamaCare are so astonishing that they need only go into a hospital to be able to walk out without even having been treated.
Consequently, the reputation of the central government's planning expertise is rising along with temperatures and ObamaCare cure rates.  The time is coming for the feds to address a lingering social problem that troubles the country: a divorce rate that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been stuck at 53% for the last two years of record (2010-2011).
In addition to the emotional trauma divorce brings to a marriage, and to children associated with it, the average American divorce costs $15,000 (with some estimates as high as $30,000).  In 2011, there were 877,000 divorces (and annulments), costing at least $13,155,000,000 - a number equivalent to half the 2012 GDP of Vermont.
Clearly, it's in the nation's best interest to significantly decrease the failure rate of marriages and, thereby, save billions of dollars. And only the federal government is equipped to deal with this problem on a national level.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ten Obamacare Predictions for 2014

National Review ^ | 1/6/2013 | Grace-Marie Turner 

To kick off 2014, Kathleen Sebelius is reportedly papering the country with op-eds about the wonders of the “Affordable” Care Act. But her PR campaign aside, things will continue to deteriorate for Obamacare in 2014. Here are ten ways it’ll happen:

1. Many won’t pay: A sizeable share of the 2 million people who selected a private insurance plan before the 2013 deadline will not pay their share of the premiums and therefore won’t be covered by the plans in which the White House says they “enrolled.” Enrolling, by the White House definition, is actually just selecting a plan — the same as putting an item in the shopping basket at Amazon. Until you pay, you don’t own it. Early reports from Washington State and Nevada show that only half of those selecting a plan had paid their first month’s premium before the deadline.

2. Others will stop paying: Even if people do pay their premiums for the first few months, we’ll wait to see how many people are still paying them later in the year and maintaining their insurance. Remember, the law requires people to pay premiums for health insurance every month, year after year, to comply with the mandate; if they go more than three months in a year without government-approved health insurance, they have to pay a penalty tax.

3. Many enrollees will be the newly-uninsured: Obama-administration officials are not releasing data on how many of the people who have picked plans are from the ranks of the uninsured. One reason: It is likely that many if not most of those enrolling in private insurance are people who have been kicked out of their existing private plans because their policies didn’t comply with the mountain of Obamacare rules, mandates, and requirements.

4. Another broken promise: Many members of Congress who voted for Obamacare did so because they wanted “universal coverage.” But we may end up further from that goal: If the numbers show that millions of those buying insurance on the exchanges had insurance before but lost it because it didn’t comply with Obamacare’s rules, we may wind up with fewer people with private insurance than before the $2.6 trillion law passed! That would be another betrayal of trust with the American people, who genuinely wanted to help expand access to health insurance.

5. Many uninsured won’t enroll: People will find that Obamacare’s high-deductible insurance policies just aren’t worth the exorbitant premiums — even after subsidies — and won’t buy. Faced with paying premiums of $3,000 or more a year and carrying a $4,000 annual deductible, millions just won’t see the value in buying the coverage.

6. Sicker and older enrollees will outweigh younger healthies: The Obama administration hasn’t released a demographic breakdown of exchange enrollees so far. But many of us — and many in the Obama administration — fear that those most likely to enroll are older, sicker, and more expensive patients, not — despite Pajama Boy’s hot-chocolate plea — the younger, healthier people needed to offset their elders’ premiums. This will mean premiums or deductibles will have to be even higher in 2015.

7. Tens of millions will see employer plans canceled: The next wave of lost coverage will be among those receiving health insurance through small businesses. Most do not self-insure (the way big companies do), and the health-insurance policies that businesses renewed in 2013 under the old rules will expire in waves throughout 2014 because they don’t meet the law’s new mandates. Expect to see many more news articles reporting on the next cascade of lost policies.

8. Most of the newly insured will be on Medicaid: The more heavily subsidized insurance is, the more likely people are to enroll. Medicaid is free to patients, or nearly so, so it’s likely to see the greatest enrollment. In Kentucky, for example, 85 percent of those enrolling so far are on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

9. Fewer insurance companies will participate in 2015: Many insurance companies took a “watch and wait” attitude to participating in the Obamacare exchanges in the first year. Those that did participate have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to structure plans that comply with the law. But as the rules change, sometimes daily, these companies have been sent into a frenzy to comply with the new directives. Those who bought in and those who didn’t will look carefully at whether or not they will participate in 2015. If they don’t, people will have even fewer choices of plans, and premiums will be even higher next year.

10. Court cases will continue: Legal challenges will continue to march through the courts, and at least some are likely to succeed. Private companies and religiously affiliated charities face ruinous fines if they fail to comply with the mandate that they provide free coverage for their employees for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs, despite their strong religious objections. Lower courts have granted preliminary injunctions in 18 of the 20 cases they’ve heard so far.

A number of other suits are challenging the IRS rule that authorizes subsidies for health insurance in the federal exchanges — which the law clearly doesn’t provide for – and decisions are expected early this year on that matter in federal district courts. And eleven state attorneys general are challenging the Obama administration’s decision to simply stop enforcing the Affordable Care Act’s mandates, including the latest directive to allow insurance companies to keep offering health plans that had been canceled.  While the attorneys general support continued coverage, the way the president did it is “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law,” they claim; lawsuits are likely.

All of these predictions should make another fair bet: Before the 2014 elections, Congress will send legislation to the president to soften the blow of Obamacare, most likely delaying the individual mandate by at least a year. If that happens, the center pole in the Obamacare tent comes down, and the door will open wide for major, structural changes to the law in 2015.

ObamaCare’s four biggest lies!

NY Post ^ | 1/5/2104 | Michael Garland 

President Obama’s famous vow — “If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan. Period.” — isn’t the only broken promise of ObamaCare.
Now that the Affordable Care Act has actually been in effect for a week, Americans are discovering more pitfalls associated with the massive overhaul.
Lie #1: “Affordable” Care. Even the president’s ideological allies — like Michael Moore — acknowledge that the Affordable Care Act is far from inexpensive for most Americans and that it “risks being a cruel joke.”
For average Americans, the results are prohibitively expensive. “The cheapest plan available to a 60-year-old couple making $65,000 a year in Hartford, Conn., will cost $11,800 in annual premiums,” according to Moore’s math, as published in a New York Times editorial. “If both become seriously ill, they might have to pay almost $25,000 in a single year.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Now do you see?


King Putt


Poor's Choice!






Smells fishy!


Ain't Gonna Happen!




Show Me!


Barack Monopoly


The Frog


The Definition


The urge!


Worked out perfectly!


Socialism vs Capitalism




In Gov't we trust




The Light


Cold enough yet?