Monday, February 24, 2014

Harvard writer: Free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed

Daily Caller ^ | 2/23/14 | Robby Soave
If this Harvard University student got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps. Her name is Sandra Korn. She is a senior at Harvard and columnist for the Harvard Crimson. In a recent column, Korn unambiguously insisted that the university should stop guaranteeing professors and students the right to hold controversial views and pursue research that challenges liberalism.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Ann Coulter Is Full Of It

Conservative HQ ^ | 2/21/14 | George Rasley

The leaders of the Big Government Republican establishment are beginning to get desperate. They are finally starting to grasp that the limited government constitutional conservatives of the Tea Party movement and other liberty-minded voters now understand that the first, and most important, fights in the battle to restore America are the Republican primary elections.

In a desperate effort to hold on to power they have begun to deploy one of their oldest tactics in the 100-year civil war in the Republican Party – calls for Party unity to back Big Government Republican incumbents who have betrayed conservative principles and are rightly facing primary challenges. Conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter whose incisive critiques of liberal policy follies and witty jibes at liberals and Democrats in general, make conservatism interesting and entertaining is only the latest in a long line of “conservatives” to get suckered into the idea that keeping establishment Republicans in power somehow advances the goal of governing America according to conservative principles. It doesn’t and it never has. "Of course, I love the Tea Party," Coulter said to Sean Hannity, but she limited the Tea Party movement to people in the "heart of America" who want to see change. She said Tea Party groups such as the Senate Conservatives Fund are just trying to bilk donors. In other words, now that the Tea Party movement has grown politically sophisticated enough to adopt the tools that the establishment uses to stay in power, such as PACs, and the Senate Conservatives Fund PAC is being effective against incumbent Big Government establishment Republicans, Coulter wants to disarm the opposition. But here’s where Ann Coulter is really full of it. “If it weren’t for shysters running against establishment Republicans we would have 51 Republicans senators right now,” Coulter told Sean Hannity referring to the 2012 blow-ups of the Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock Senate campaigns. Coulter’s comment shows just what a deep draught of the establishment Kool-Aid she has taken and is indicative of how the Big Government Republican establishment is desperately trying to rewrite history to advance the idea that only establishment candidates can win and that conservatives should “unite” behind Republican candidates who have records of betraying conservative principles. Akin and Mourdock weren’t first time rookie candidates; they were experienced Republican politicians with many campaigns under their belts. What’s more the comments that blew up their campaigns had nothing to do with the Tea Party’s limited government constitutional conservative agenda. They got suckered by the Democrats’ “war on women” strategy, put their foot in their mouth, were quickly abandoned by the GOP establishment despite conservative calls for Party unity, and consequently got beat. As our friend Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth put it so well, “the question isn’t why Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lost — we know why they lost,” said Chocola. “The question is really why did Heather Wilson in New Mexico, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, George Allen in Virginia and Linda Lingle in Hawaii — why did they lose?” We could add Mitt Romney nationally and Connie Mack in Florida to Chocola’s list, but you get the point. The fact of the matter is that of the three Republican Senate victories in 2012; Nebraska’s Deb Fischer, Arizona’s Jeff Flake and Texas’ Ted Cruz all ran as Tea Party-oriented or anti-establishment candidates. There’s no evidence that running as a principled limited government constitutional conservative automatically made a candidate “unelectable” in 2012 and a whole lot of evidence that running as a Bush-type establishment Republican did make one “unelectable,” because despite the millions Karl Rove and his establishment Republican funders spent on them they all lost. Tit-for-tat is a poor reason to do anything, so we will forego the opportunity to explore where exactly were the establishment calls for Republican Party unity in campaigns where the conservative won the primary, such as the Goldwater, Reagan and Cuccinelli campaigns, when the Republican establishment did everything they could to undermine the conservative candidate after the primary. Calls for Republican “unity” and a free pass in the primary for incumbent establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, Pat Roberts and Thad Cochran will only accomplish one thing; keeping ineffective and unprincipled establishment Republicans in power. And anyone, including our friend Ann Coulter, who thinks that advances the cause of conservative governance is full of it.

Obama Silences Critics of ObamaCare With IRS!

http://townhall.com/columnists/betsymccaughey/2014/02/20/obama-silences-critics-with-irs-n1796688/page/full ^

Obama is using the Internal Revenue Service to silence employers unhappy about Obamacare. That’s the hidden purpose behind the employer mandate delay announced on February 10th.

The administration released 227 pages of mind-numbing regulations ridiculously billed as making “ the compliance process simpler and easier” for employers. Hidden in the gobbledy-gook (on pages 125-6) is a requirement that employers sign a statement to the IRS, meaning under penalty of perjury, that they have not reduced the number of employees or cut hours to shield themselves from the costs of Obamacare. Democrats running for re-election this fall are desperate to avoid similar headlines. This time, instead of the president offering employers a delay, he is offering most of them a bribe to keep quiet. Once employers swear that they have not cut hours due to Obamacare, how can they speak out about the law’s harm to their business? The new rule criminalizes something Congress has not made a crime, and federal courts have said businesses can do. Federal court judge Learned Hand observed in 1934 (Helvering v. Gregory dicta) that “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” Deceit is the primary motive behind the newly announced regulation. On page 36, it states that although employers are distressed that the law defines 30 hours as full time job requiring insurance, nothing can be done because the statute expressly states 30 hours. What—this is the only part of the statute the administration won’t change by fiat?

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...

Four Pinocchios to Obama on Medicaid-expansion claims: Politico notices gov't stats are worthless


Hotair ^ | 02/24/2014 | Ed Morrissey

It’s not the first time that the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler has dropped a bunch of Pinocchios on claims from Democrats on Medicaid expansion, and it looks like it won’t be the last, either. Kessler even gave himself three Pinocchios a month ago for initially buying the White House spin on the Medicaid numbers. Today, he gives Barack Obama the maximum four Pinocchios for claiming that ObamaCare has resulted in seven million enrollments in the federal program for low-income Americans:
“We’ve got close to 7 million Americans who have access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion.” – President Obama, remarks during dinner with the Democratic Governors Association, Feb. 20, 2014 The Fact Checker has written several times about the fuzziness of the Medicaid numbers issued by the Obama administration. But it is like playing whack-a-mole. Every time we rap someone for getting it wrong, the same problem pops up someplace else.

The problem is, as it has been, Democrats using the total number of Medicaid enrollments over the last few months, which comes to slightly over seven million. That includes, however, enrollments in states that refused to participate in the Medicaid expansion of ObamaCare, which account for 2.3 million of those enrollments. That takes the number to 4.8 million — but as Kessler has repeatedly explained since giving himself three Pinocchios on the point, that still includes people who would have been eligible without the Medicaid expansion. How many does that leave? That depends on who you ask, because believe it or not, HHS never bothered to ask enrollees. Politico reports today that ObamaCare numbers on the previously uninsured moving to both Medicaid and private insurance are unreliable because HHS didn’t bother to provide questions that would have provided that data:
When you go to all this trouble to cover the uninsured, is it really that unreasonable to ask how many uninsured people Obamacare has covered so far? The answer, apparently, is: Yes. It’s unreasonable. The truth is, nobody has a good, real-time fix on how successful the Affordable Care Act has been in reducing the ranks of the uninsured. The Obama administration hasn’t been able to say how many of the 3.3 million people who have signed up for private health insurance coverage, or of the 6.3 million who have been determined eligible for Medicaid, were actually uninsured before — and health care experts aren’t sure yet, either. There have been a couple of surveys, and at least one state — New York — has been keeping track of how many people were uninsured when they applied for coverage. But their answers are so wildly different that all we can say is, it’s either a tiny minority that were uninsured, or it’s most of them.

Two different groups have estimated the extent to which ObamaCare has expanded Medicaid to the uninsured. One is Acela, which estimates the figure at between 1.1 million and 1.8 million. Kessler also quotes Charles Gaba, who puts the number at 2.6 million. Both are far below Barack Obama’s claims, and also far below what the administration expected to see by this stage. The most motivated of all the uninsured should have been those eligible for Medicaid, and yet we haven’t seen a rush to enroll — and those who are motivated to do so probably already have. That means there won’t be a big spike coming in the next couple of months. Kessler wonders how the President could be so ignorant of the weakness of this data:
In any case, no matter how you slice it, it does not add up to 7 million. It is dismaying that given all of the attention to this issue, the president apparently does not realize that the administration’s data are woefully inadequate for boastful assertions of this type.

I’d say it has less to do with ignorance than apathy. He doesn’t care whether the numbers are accurate or worthwhile — he just wants the talking point.

Consider free cash from feds!


The Pittsburg Tribue-Review ^ | February 23, 2014 | Gail MarksJarvis

If you have a modest income, you've probably been asking yourself how you will ever be able to find the money to start saving.
So here it is: Provided your income is low enough, the federal government will pay you to stash money away for your retirement — giving you as much as $1,000. The deal comes through what's known as the “saver's credit.” You can find it buried in the tax return you do each year, and if you use the free tax preparation software the government gives people with incomes below $58,000, locating the saver's credit will be fairly easy. The “Free File” software is available at IRS.gov. I suggest using the software, because paper forms make finding and using the saver's credit more difficult than finding Waldo on a book page. Even finding the name in tax materials will be perplexing, because the government uses two other names for the saver's credit. On the 1040 form, look for “Retirement Savings Contribution Credit,” and, on Form 8880, look for “Credit for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions,” said Catherine Collinson, president of Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. You won't find the saver's credit on the 1040EZ form. Hunting for this credit is worth the extra effort. The saver's credit is available to individuals with incomes less than $29,500 and couples with incomes less than $59,000, and the benefit depends on your income. Go to http://1.usa.gov/1dkeGik. The typical credit is about $200 for couples and about $122 for individuals. To qualify, you have to save for retirement either through a 401(k) or similar retirement savings plan at work, or through a new or existing individual retirement account. Although you might think saving is impossible given your bills, the found money may make it possible. Consider a nurse whom Texas certified public accountant and financial planner Jerry Love advised. With an income of almost $32,000, she would have thought the saver's credit was outside her reach. But Love had her put $2,500 into an IRA, where she will save for her retirement years from now on. By reporting on her tax return that she was putting $2,500 into an IRA, she got a deduction that brought her income just below the $29,500 maximum allowed for the saver's credit. Immediately, that cut her taxes by $375. Then she got a saver's credit of $250. In other words, the government gives her $625 to save for her future. So she can save a total of $2,500 for retirement but needs to come up with only $1,875 out of pocket. When people don't have the full $2,500, or some lesser amount, available to deposit immediately in an IRA, they use tax filing deadlines to their advantage. They report on their taxes what they will deposit in an IRA, then file their taxes long before the April 15 deadline for IRA contributions. When the tax refund arrives, they use that money to fund their IRA fully — just as they reported on their tax return — by April 15. You don't have to put $2,500 into an IRA. Even $50 would do at a brokerage firm such as Scottrade or Charles Schwab. The nurse in Love's example put in $2,500 so she could get her income down to the level needed to get the saver's credit. If she retires in 40 years, the $1,875 she took out of her pocket, plus the money from the government, will end up giving her about $54,000 for retirement. And if she stashed another $2,500 a year into the IRA for the next 40 years, she could end up with almost $700,000.

Benefits

b4j6lc.jpg

Redifine Everything

1654447_356601131147378_1031393681_n.jpg

WHY?

2v7ump1.jpg

The Parade

50p18p.jpg

The Rules

23lgi9c.jpg

Obamacare Alterations

Obamacare-Delays.jpg

Way to go!

35ipssx.gif

Napolean's Obamacare!

2cgybs4.jpg

Obama Costs

14vrcw8.jpg

WHAT?

208d4xy.jpg

ANYTHING I WANT!

5knllg.jpg

Fence Straddling

34gpn45.jpg

SUB PAR!

Obama-Sub-Parjpg.jpg

Obfuscate

fc0fue.jpg

More social justice!

fundamentally-transformed-america.jpg

Make it up!

2pq2h69.jpg

TUMOR

190699.png

Go...

144565_600.jpg

No Brains

190700.jpg

Problems

33dv24z.jpg

Government at work!

64660_524530287662174_1602095592_n.png

Your Doc

5oinbs.gif

DuhBro Gotta Go

190705.JPG

Focus

144414_600.jpg

Crowns

307q55e.jpg