Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Democratic poll finds Obama’s base is ready to stay home in November!

Hot Air ^ | April 8, 2014 | Allahpundit
The poll was conducted between March 19 and 23, a week before the White House declared “mission accomplished” on ObamaCare, so maybe it’s simply missing a recent surge in enthusiasm among lefties. The first rule of ACA polling, though, is that the numbers rarely move much no matter what’s going on with the law. They dipped after the Chernobyl in October, they bounced back a bit as sign-ups improved, but overall they’ve been steady at around -10 or -12 for years now. Hard to believe that an enrollment milestone will shift that trend markedly and durably, especially with premiums set to rise this fall. And if it doesn’t, they’re in trouble. Here’s the split right now among likely voters within the “Rising American Electorate,” a.k.a. the Obama coalition of young adults, minorities, and single women, when they’re asked if they’d be more likely to support a Democratic candidate for Congress or a Republican one: A huge blue advantage — although, as Greg Sargent points out, it’s not as huge as it used to be. In 2012, Democrats won this group 67/32. Meanwhile, though, among the total electorate of likely voters, the Democratic advantage is just 44/43. How can a giant lead among the “RAE” translate into a statistically insignificant single-point lead overall? This is how:“Non-RAE,” i.e. Republican, voters are far more likely to turn out than O’s base is. To see this slightly differently, compare likely voters overall to the split among “drop-off voters,” people who voted in 2012 but are disinclined to vote in the midterms:The enthusiasm to turn out this year just isn’t there, for whatever reason. Maybe it’s standard sixth-year presidential fatigue, maybe it’s discontent with the “progress” achieved in O’s second term (especially progress on the economy and unemployment), maybe it’s something else. The pollster, Stan Greenberg, devotes the rest of his memo to showing how the “RAE” numbers would improve if Democrats ran this summer on pocketbook issues aimed at that group — a minimum wage hike, more child-care leave for working moms, etc, which helps explain why O talking about pay equity for women is the soundbite du jour. Not even Greenberg, though, claims that the right message would stop the GOP from making gains in the Senate. This is about triage, not about fully reversing an unfavorable tide. Which brings me to a question for political junkies: When was the last time one party or the other was able to steer a midterm campaign around to its preferred agenda in a way that materially affected the outcome on election day without obvious help from major intervening events? What I mean is this. During my adult life, the midterm election results have always been most obviously understood as a reaction to the president or to some momentous political development. The big red wave of ’94 was a reaction to total Democratic control of government, which produced HillaryCare; 1998 was a reaction to impeachment overreach; 2002 was a reaction to 9/11; 2006 was a reaction to Iraq; and the big red wave of 2010 was, once again, a reaction to total Democratic control of government, which produced ObamaCare. Those are simplifications, certainly, but the banner-headline items during each period surely did heavily influence voter preferences. When was the last midterm, though, when — and I realize this is a judgment call to some extent — one party was able to elevate its core agenda items (like the minimum wage) above the din of major events and slow a heavy tide in favor of the other party? Has that ever happened? I realize Democrats need some sort of message for the fall and you can always do worse than economic populism, but what’s the precedent for thinking it might work? The GOP plays the ObamaCare card and Democrats play the “more paid leave for working mothers” card and the GOP ends up with only two Senate seats instead of, say, eight? Or is the point here simply to hold the GOP to six pick-ups instead of seven so that Democrats retain control of the Senate?

Nothing is worth...


Worth dying for?




What comes with the shit sandwich?


Arm the guards




A slippery reptile


More background checks?


Stupid or what?


This is how...








Loyal Fans


'cuz I said so!






We're having a tea party!


My friends say he's COOL!


An alien



28kmqdf.jpg protect


Stop the dead!


It's Dog Shit!



VIDEO AT LINKKATY, TEXAS--A lawsuit filed by a Houston area doctor against the Affordable Care Act is moving forward to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit filed by Dr. Steven Hotze, founder of Hotze Health and Wellness Center in Katy, challenges the Obamacare law based upon the origination clause of the Constitution. In referring to what is known as The Origination Clause, “Article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution every tax bill, revenue bill has to start in the House of Representatives,” Hotze explained. “It can’t start in the Senate.” In this exclusive interview below with Breitbart Texas, Dr. Hotze explains how the Senate took a Veterans Tax Credit bill that started in the House and stripped everything out of the bill, including the title, and substituted the Affordable Care Act legislation. “If the Senate can do that, then there is no origination clause, because, the Senate can turn any bill that came from the House into a tax raising bill, and that’s wrong.” Dr. Hotze’s attorney, Andy Schlaffly told the Washington Times, “What’s nice about this case, Hotze v. Sebelius, is the trial court resolved all the procedural issues in favor of Dr. Hotze, so they got to the substance at the trial level,” said Mr. Schlafly. “That makes this case a stronger case than most of the other ones.” Dr. Hotze noted in the interview that the 5th Circuit Court is the most conservative court in the country and this makes this lawsuit one of the most likely to survive long enough to make it to the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Tax dodger Charles Rangel now dodging rent; Taxpayers to the rescue!

Michelle Malkin ^ | 4/8/2014 | Doug Powers
Censured tax dodger Charles Rangel, who once in a fit of projection accused Mitt Romney of not paying his fair share in taxes, has been caught channeling his inner Jimmy McMillan. Apparently the rent is too damn high.From the New York Post via American Thinker:
State taxpayers were stiffed out of at least $87,000 when Rep. Charles Rangel stopped paying for the district office he rents in Harlem’s Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building, records ­obtained by The Post show.His staffers’ excuse? They lost the lease, according to state Office of General Services correspondence.“I finally heard back from Congressman Rangel’s office and it seems we haven’t gotten the signed lease back because they lost it!” OGS real-estate specialist Sydney Allen wrote in a July 30, 2013, e-mail to a colleague that was ­obtained by The Post.Rangel paid $7,253 in monthly rent on the 125th Street office he has rented since 2000, expense reports from 2012 show. But the payments stopped for all of 2013.
The state stepped in and had taxpayers pick up the unpaid tab — just like they would if you or I didn’t pay our rent, right?Naturally this is all the fault of those darn Republicans:
When The Post last week inquired about the year of missing rent, Rangel’s office and OGS blamed federal sequestration, not the lost lease referenced in agency correspondence.“As everyone knows, the GOP sequester not only constrained our nation’s economy, but also strained the budget of congressional offices,” said Rangel spokeswoman Hannah Kim.
Join us next week for another episode of the continuing series, “Tales from the Undrained Swamp.”

Illegal Immigration, Misplaced Compassion, and Healthcare Reform

RedState ^ | 4/9/2014 | Daniel Horowitz
When listening to open borders agitators like former Florida governor Jeb Bush, one would come away with the impression that we owe it to the world to accept anyone who comes here illegally and pay for their living expenses. They speak of lofty ideals loosely connected to love and compassion, but they never consider the lack of love and compassion that our open borders policy imposes on the American consumer and taxpayer. There is no better example than the bankrupting of our hospitals at the hands of Jeb’s “lovely” invaders. My wife and I were entreated to the chaos of emergency room care last night after our two-year-old son slipped while climbing onto a high kitchen counter and banged his head on the floor. He had a massive lump on his forehead and we were concerned about internal bleeding. When we drove to the closest hospital, the waiting room was full of illegals. Most of them were adults who, let’s just say, did not look like they were about to keel over. Opting not to wait all night simply for a decision whether to put our son through a CT scan, we drove for a half hour in the rain to a hospital that was less likely to be full of those who use ERs for regular care.
Thank God our son recovered and there was no internal bleeding, but in a different situation that extra time could have been critical. Also, if you ever wonder why you get hosed with outrageous bills simply for stepping foot in a hospital, look no farther than the “undocumented” costs of illegal aliens.This is what the defenders of illegal immigration never comprehend or care to ponder. We can open our borders to any number of impoverished individuals from the world’s population of 7 billion. But that comes at a cost to American citizens and legal residents who are within the jurisdiction and responsibility of the country.The problems with illegal immigrants and emergency hospital care also provide us with an opportunity to examine true free market healthcare reform. Any GOP healthcare proposal must be predicated not on “replacing” Obamacare, but on fixing even some of the anti-market federal policies that existed before passage of the monstrosity.One of those policies is the mandate on hospitals to treat everyone who comes to an ER – including illegal immigrants – irrespective of whether they are suffering from a real emergency. In 1986, Congress passed The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Recon­ciliation Act (COBRA), which was ostensibly the first act in universal healthcare mandates.If we ever plan to curb skyrocketing hospital costs and improve access to emergency care, we must address this massive unfunded federal mandate of EMTALA. Among the provisions of Rep. Paul Broun’s Patient Option Act, which is one of the best healthcare reform proposals, are some good reforms of emergency and indigent care. Under Broun’s proposal, hospitals would be allowed to turn away people from ERs if they do not have an immediate need for emergency care. This would solve the problem of illegal immigrants using ERs for primary care.Juxtaposed to this provision is a tax credit for physicians who provide indigent care as a form of charity. While conservatives usually advocate deductions over credits for the cost of healthcare, that is for individuals who purchase health insurance. But for healthcare providers, especially for most doctors who already pay a tremendous amount in taxes, they should be incentivized to treat those without the means to pay for the care with a credit.Taken as a whole, these two provisions would transfer the cost of indigent care from a federally-mandated tax on physicians and consumers to a voluntary tax incentive for physicians and those who donate to free-service clinics.If the politicians are concerned about being compassionate to Americans and clamping down on illegal immigration, they should start with free market healthcare reform.

The Meltdown of the Obama Genderhawks ^ | April 9, 2014 | Michelle Malkin
I have created a new species designation for the female Democrats who play hypocritical gender politics on behalf of Barack Obama. They're genderhawks. You remember the term "chickenhawk," don't you? During the Bush years, anti-war activists and journalists hurled the ad hominem epithet at anyone who supported military action against our enemies but hadn't personally served. I say let's give 'em a dose of their own tactical medicine. Genderhawks are feminist chickenhawks. They demand "equal pay" for women, practice militant identity politics based on chromosomes and purport to wage an all-out government war on gender inequity. Yet, they personally refuse to hold themselves and their lousy male bosses accountable for their own gender-based failures and delinquencies. Meet genderhawk Jennifer Palmieri. The Clinton administration veteran faithfully defended a lecherous philanderer-in-chief against what his sexist operatives called "bimbo eruptions." Then she served as spokeswoman for adulterous crapweasel John Edwards. Now, she is Obama's communications flack and chief social media gender warrior. On Tuesday, which Team Obama and its feminist pals dubbed "Equal Pay Day," Palmieri took to Twitter to call out the sexist White House press corps: "Love all these guys, but note that 6 of 7 news orgs in front row sent men to ask @presssec abt the problem of gender pay inequity," Palmieri tweeted. Oooh. Get it? Palmieri was womansplaining, gender-shaming and upside-the-head-smacking the mainstream media for sending tone-deaf men to ask about women's issues. She really zapped and zinged 'em, didn't she?! Well, only in her Beltway bubble-wrapped head. Palmieri humiliated just one person: herself. In her faux-minist fog, she forgot that her own boss, the president, is a man . His vice president is a man . Their labor secretary is a man . In fact, 12 of 15 Obama cabinent members are dastardly men. And White House press secretary Jay Carney, sent by her male managers to answer questions about gender equity from the men Palmieri deemed insufficiently sensitive to women's issues, is a man . Thankfully, sane journalists of both genders pushed back against Palmieri's identity politics run amok. Fox News reporter Ed Henry fired back: "WH sent man to podium, right?" Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Salena Zito retorted: "In your line of (thought) Jennifer, a woman should have taken the question for the White House not a man." National Review's Charles W. Cooke quizzed: "Would the answers have been different if the questions had been asked by women?" Forced to respond, Palmieri grudgingly acknowledged that the press secretary carries XY chromosomes, but she rationalized that he's a man "who advocates for policies to reduce gender pay inequality and appreciates seriousness of problem." See, gals? Jay Carney feels your pain -- unlike those chauvinist pigs in the press corps asking pesky questions about bogus White House wage inequity stats! See, guys? If you pay lip service to caring, you can be honorary genderhawks, too. Obama and his femme-a-gogue flock aren't fooling anyone. It's not just evil men and right-wingers raising questions about the Democrats' Equal Pay Day theater. Reporters bombarded Carney about a new American Enterprise Institute study that found that the salary for the median female White House staffer is 12 percent lower than for a male staffer. Carney meekly replied that at least the White House pay gap is not as bad as the national average. Both the left-wing Daily Beast and the free-market Wall Street Journal opinion pages debunked the "77 cents on a dollar" myth, which inflates the gender gap by failing to account for education, occupation and marital status. When challenged on the White House promotion of junk science, Carney sneered at a Reuters reporter that he "would expect something a little more precise." While Palmieri runs interference for Carney and Obama, the cloud of sexism charges hanging over the White House hasn't gone away. It's liberal media outlets including The New York Times and Time magazine that have noted the "boys' club" climate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, epitomized by the glaring absence of women in featured Oval Office photos of Obama's meetings with senior advisers. (Well, except for that one photo that showed a sliver of Valerie Jarrett's leg.) And it was a top female aide, Anita Dunn, who very precisely told author Ron Suskind on tape that the Obama White House "actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women." Meanwhile, Obama genderhawk Jennifer Palmieri thinks squawking about male reporters is the way to achieve feminist social justice. Whatever we're paying this unhinged, selective man-hating lady is way too much.