Saturday, October 10, 2015

Nearly 1,000 People Move From Blue States to Red States Every Day. Here’s Why.

daily signal ^ | October 9, 2015 | Stephen Moore 

The so-called “progressives” love to talk about how their policies will create a worker’s paradise, but then why is it that day after day, month after month, year after year, people are fleeing liberal blue states for conservative red states?

The new Census data on where we live and where we moved to in 2014 shows that the top seven states with the biggest percentage increase in in-migration from other states are in order: North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Texas. All of these states are red, except Colorado, which is purple.
Meanwhile, the leading exodus states of the continental states in percentage terms were Alaska, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Kansas. All of these states are blue, except Alaska and Kansas.
The latest Rich States, Poor States document (which I co-author), published by ALEC, the state legislative organization, finds that nearly 1,000 people each day on net are leaving blue states and entering red states. This migration is changing the economic center of gravity in America—moving it relentlessly to the South and West.
Travis Brown, the author of the indispensable book “How Money Walks,” shows that two of the leading factors behind this movement of human capital are 1) whether a state has a right to work law (half of the states do) and 2) how high the top income tax rate is in the state. Nine states have no income tax today, and they are creating twice the pace of jobs as are high-income tax states.
Data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) show a similar trend. Each year the IRS issues a migration data report that examines how many tax filers (and dependents) in the year changed their residency and how much income was transported from one state to another. The numbers for the most recent year (tax filing year 2013) are gigantic and put the lie to the claim that interstate migration is too small to matter in terms of the wealth and economic opportunity in one state versus another.
In 2013, Florida gained $8.2 billion in adjusted gross income from out-of-staters. Texas gained $5.9 billion—in one year. Five of the seven states with the biggest gains in income have no income tax at all: Florida, Texas, Arizona, Washington, and Nevada. New York was again the big loser, with another 112,236 tax filers leaving and taking $5.2 billion with them. (So much for those TV ads trying to lure businesses into America’s 2nd highest taxed state with temporary tax breaks.) Illinois lost nearly 67,000 tax filers and $3.7 billion of income it can no longer tax.
I’ve never met a Democrat who could come up with even a semi-plausible explanation for why families and businesses are hightailing it out of blue states. They are leaving states with high minimum wages, pro-union work rules, high taxes on the rich, generous welfare benefits, expansive regulations to “help” workers, green energy policies, etc. People are voting with their feet against these liberal policies.
When I debated Paul Krugman this summer, I confronted him with this reality. His lame explanation for the steady migration from liberal North to conservative South was that “air conditioning” has made the South more livable. Americans are evidently moving because of the weather.
There are two glaring problems with this theory: California and North Dakota. In the last decade ending in 2013, 1.4 million more Americans left California than moved into the once-Golden State. It’s a good bet these California refugees didn’t leave for more sunshine or better weather.
And if warm weather is what is attracting people to the South—and surely there is some truth to that—why did the coldest state outside Alaska, North Dakota, have the biggest population gain in percentage terms in the most recent year? The answer is that workers went to get jobs created by the Bakken Shale oil and gas boom. By the way, California is one of the oil- and gas-richest states in the nation, but its “green” politicians are regulating that industry out of businesses. So much for caring about working-class Americans.
The latest Census and IRS data merely confirm what Americans can see every day with their own two eyes. Red states are a magnet. There’s a downside to this for sure. Conservatives have a legitimate gripe that as blue-staters come into their prosperous red states, they try to turn them blue. That’s happened in New Hampshire, where Massachusetts transplants vote for the left-wing policies they just fled.
But the underlying trend is unmistakable: Liberal blue states are economic dinosaurs. Will they change their ways before they go the way of Detroit and become extinct?

'Saturday Night Live' Donates to Hillary's Campaign (Is anyone Surprised?) ^ | October 10, 2015 | Jonah Goldberg 

"Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend, I'll help you carry on."
The Bill Withers song has been covered by countless artists, but the rendition of "Lean on Me" performed in a duet last weekend on the season premiere of "Saturday Night Live" had novel poignancy. It was sung by Kate McKinnon, the show's go-to impersonator of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and Mrs. Clinton herself. The appearance was an integral part of the Clinton campaign's much-touted re-re-re-rebranding push to make Clinton seem more spontaneous and relatable. And it was, by most accounts, a success.
The headline on the Daily Beast's review summed it up well: "'Saturday Night Live' Premiere Basically a Hillary Clinton Campaign Ad." And, as the Daily Beast's senior entertainment reporter Kevin Fallon notes, it wasn't just the skit with Clinton's walk-on that was a gift. It was almost the whole show. The 'SNL' news segment took shots at potential Clinton opponent Joe Biden and New Hampshire Democratic primary front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders. Even the inevitable potshots at Donald Trump were aimed, at least in part, at making Clinton seem like the only safe choice in the 2016 race.
And that's fine. The First Amendment covers sketch comedy. And it's hardly as if Clinton is the first presidential candidate or politician to take advantage of "Saturday Night Live" or some other entertainment show.
In 1968, Richard Nixon had many of the same challenges Clinton faces today. He was seen, rightly, as stiff, aloof, conspiratorial and too self-serious. That's why he went on "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In" and said "sock it to me." Nixon didn't win the very close presidential election because of one five-second bit on "Laugh-In." But he probably wouldn't have won if he hadn't followed the advice of a 28-year-old media consultant wunderkind named Roger Ailes, who helped choreograph Nixon's image makeover, and the "sock it to me" moment was arguably the most significant part of that effort. (Note: Ailes now runs Fox News, where I am a contributor). George Schlatter, the producer of "Laugh-In," later apologized for helping Nixon get elected.
If Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2016, I very much doubt that Lorne Michaels, the executive producer of "Saturday Night Live," will express similar regrets.
And that's fine, too.
Again, "Saturday Night Live" has the same First Amendment rights as The New York Times and The Washington Post But you know who else has the same free-speech rights as the mainstream media? You and me -- and George Soros, Charles and David Koch, and every other citizen of the United States.
And that's why the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United was correct. In that decision, the court held that everyone has the right to get their views and opinions out into the public conversation.
In the arguments before the court, the Obama administration took the position that the government could even ban books during election season if those books amounted to "express advocacy" for a candidate, even if that advocacy took the form of a single mention of a candidate.
The court rejected that argument, and President Obama, along with most liberals, have never forgiven the justices. Hillary Clinton is so opposed to the ruling, she has made amending the First Amendment a cornerstone of her campaign.
Why do liberals hate Citizens United so much? No doubt there are many explanations, but one seems particularly obvious. In a world where only powerful institutions in the mainstream media have an unfettered right to make their case during elections, then the conversation is going to go in their favor. Even if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh were the monsters liberal claim they are, the scales still lean inarguably leftward when you include the biggest newspapers, the major TV networks, National Public Radio, and popular programs like "The Daily Show" and "60 Minutes."
None of these outlets would consider their editorials, news coverage and comedy sketches to be "in kind donations," but from the perspective of political campaigns, that's a distinction without a difference. Because Democrats understand that when they're not strong, they can lean on their friends to help them carry on.

Obama bans pork products from federal prisons – you’ll be FURIOUS when you hear why!

BPR ^ | October 10. 2015 | Tom Tillison 

The Obama administration has banned bacon, pork chops, pork links, ham and all other pork products from all federal prisons.
But for those concerned that the U.S. government is bending to the will of Muslim inmates, the Bureau of Prisons, which falls under the charge of the Justice Department, insists the change was made based on a survey of prisoners’ food preferences, the Washington Post reported.
[snip]“In general we welcome the change because it’s facilitating the accommodation of Muslim inmates,’ said CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. “We hope it’s not an indication of an increasing number of Muslims in the prison system.”
[snip]The nation’s pork producers, on the other hand, who first learned of the ban on Monday when contacted by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for comment, are not as pleased.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Valerie Jarrett The Muslim Agent Who Pulls Obama’s Strings — Moles in the W. House

Reality in the News ^ | Oct. 21, 2012 | unk 

Who is the Muslim Woman Co-President of America? Who Chooses the Mohammedans Working for Obama?
A lot has been said — in the press, by the president, by others — about president Obama’s affinity for the Muslim world.
From his promise that “I will stand with them (the Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” to his description of the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth” to his bowing before the Saudi king, Obama’s actions have convinced many people that the American president is a hidden Muslim, despite his politically-motivated protestations and claims to the contrary.
What hasn’t often been asked but should be, given recent evidence of infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood in most if not all levels of government, is whether there is a Muslim agent working in the White House to manipulate the president.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. Army hearing officer recommends no jail for Bergdahl

OAN ^ | 10/10/15 | By Jim Forsyth 

The U.S. military officer who headed a hearing in the case of accused deserter Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl recommended that the man held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan should not be sent to a military prison, Bergdahl’s lawyers said.
In a memorandum issued on Friday, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Visger, the presiding officer at the so-called Article 32 hearing last month in San Antonio, recommended “non-judicial punishment” for Bergdahl, the lawyers said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?

NY Times ^ | 10/07/15 | Thomas B. Edsall 

Voters on both the left and the right often claim that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties, and of course that isn’t true. There’s a big difference between Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia, for one thing. But there may be more to this argument than you think.

Democrats now depend as much on affluent voters as on low-income voters. Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts, and the party’s elected officials are more responsive to the policy agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter.


Sanders is running on an explicitly left-populist platform. It includes taxation of overseas corporate profits, a progressive estate tax, an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, the investment of $1 trillion in infrastructure, withdrawal from Nafta and other trade agreements, free tuition at public colleges, a single-payer health care system, and more.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Victims to tell their stories in Fox News special...“Censored in America”

Wisconsin Watchdog ^ | 10-9-15 | M. D. Kittle 

MADISON, Wis. – Targets of Wisconsin’s political John Doe investigations will share their stories of government-stifled speech on an upcoming Fox News special.
“Censored in America,” as reported by John Stossel, airs at 7 p.m. Central Time Saturday.
“America is the first country to say to its people: all of you have a right to speak. But today speech is under siege,” Stossel writes in a blog promoting the special.
In it, he tells the stories of several people who have lost that right to speak, suffering varying consequences for doing so.
Stossel includes the story of John Doe targets Deborah Jordahl and her son, Adam.
RELATED: John Doe horror stories
On Oct. 3, 2013, Jordahl, a political strategist, and her family were forced to watch law enforcement root through and seize their possessions in predawn, paramilitary-style raids – all over an alleged campaign finance crime. She and the other targets of the probe were never charged with any wrongdoing, and the state Supreme Court in July found the investigation unconstitutional and ordered it shut down.
During the raid, Jordahl, her husband, and her teenage children were confined to the home’s family room, guarded by a Dane County deputy sheriff.
“At one point early on, I started to get up from the sofa,” Jordahl told Wisconsin Watchdog in July. “I told the deputy who was guarding us that I wanted to call my lawyer. She backed me down on the sofa and told me I could not call anyone.”
“I felt completely helpless in my own home.”
Stossel examines the John Doe secrecy orders, which has effectively held targets, subjects and witnesses as speech prisoners for years, prohibiting them from talking about the investigation to anyone.
“Authorities confiscated their computers and cell phones, and ordered them (and their children!) not to speak to anyone about the raids,” the Fox Business Network reporter writes in his blog.” Targets faced jail time and hefty fines for violating the gag orders.
“Recently Wisconsin’s Supreme Court revoked the speech ban, saying prosecutors ‘employed theories of law that did not exist.’ But by then, Republican activists had been silenced for 5 years,” Stossel writes.
The special also will feature Eric O’Keefe, long-time conservative activist who has fought back against the investigation and its enforced secrecy, filing lawsuits against the probe’s prosecutors and the state speech regulator integrally involved.
And “Censored in America” will tell the stories of censorship on college campuses, and of the high-profile Americans who lost their livelihoods because of the things they said – or once said.
Part 260 of 258 in the series Wisconsin's Secret War

Grass-Roots Anger Transforms Republican Party in Congress and Presidential Campaign ^ | 10/9/15 | Janet Hook and 

The insurgent uprisings rocking the Republican Party in Congress and the presidential campaign are creating heartburn among establishment party figures, who worry an unguided fury will keep the GOP from reclaiming the White House next fall. But that same turmoil is eliciting cheers from many in the party’s grass roots, who, far from fearing the turbulence, think it serves their burning desire to force changes in the government.
Both sides suspect that the Grand Old Party, long run by a hierarchical and well-organized elite, is being transformed by the conservative anger that initially propelled the party back to congressional power in 2010.
The shocking news that Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) abandoned his bid to become House speaker on Thursday put an exclamation point on the party’s divisions. Coming on the heels of House Speaker John Boehner’s own surprise resignation, the episode showed the growing clout of the activist wing of the party, which is also fueling the White House bids of celebrity real-estate developer Donald Trump and other political newcomers.
“Everyone in Washington is in denial and they wonder when this bubble is going to burst; it ain’t going to burst,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. “The House Republican turmoil is a symptom of the larger tidal wave. It is not a problem in itself.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why the American military is so hot on laser weapons

The Week ^ | October 9, 2015 | Kyle Mizokami 

From hand-held blasters to planet-destroying death rays, laser weapons are a fanciful staple of science fiction. But at their core, lasers are just concentrated beams of light that generate heat. As simple as that sounds, they've proven remarkably difficult to weaponize. Until now.
Quietly and without great fanfare the laser weapon has arrived, and warfare will never be the same.
This week Lockheed Martin, the defense contractor behind the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, announced it was exploring ways to put a laser on the controversial fighter. The U.S. Navy has already fielded a laser weapon on the USS Ponce. And the U.S. Army is looking for ways to use lasers to protect troops in the field from artillery shells, missiles, and drones.
All of this is just a start. As lasers grow smaller and more compact, eventually they will be mounted on everything from bombers to tanks. A quiet killer at the speed of light, lasers may some day dominate the battlefield as we know it.
A laser inflicts damage with heat produced by focused light. This heat can burn a hole in the skin of airplanes, set a pickup truck's gas tank on fire, and even burn holes in people. Pointed at an artillery shell in flight, a laser can heat the shell until the explosive inside detonates.
Engineers have known how lasers work for decades but have been held back by various problems, chief of which are power generation and storage. A laser needs a lot of energy — in the tens of kilowatts range or higher — to be usable as a weapon. And it needs it instantly.
Despite the technological hurdles, there are reasons why research has persisted. Lasers have many advantages over conventional projectile weapons. A laser moves at roughly the speed of light, or 186,000 miles per second. Unlike a missile, an accurate laser beam can't be avoided. Lasers aren't affected by strong winds and can't be blown off target.
Laser weapons are invisible, operating at an optical wavelength the human eye cannot discern. They are also silent and unlike bullets and shells, do not produce miniature sonic booms. Unlike conventional weapons, which utilize a controlled explosion to generate energy, lasers have no recoil.
Lasers are also affordable. A single Griffin short-range missile costs at least $115,000. A shot from a laser costs usually costs less than a dollar, the price of the energy used. The actual laser system is more expensive — the laser on the USS Ponce cost $40 million, including six years of research and development — but expect the price tag to fall as they become more common.
These futuristic weapons do have their drawbacks. They are complicated, delicate systems that generate a tremendous amount of heat and need to cool between shots. The farther a laser travels through the air the weaker it becomes. Particles in the air such as dust, water droplets, sand, or snow can scatter the laser beam, quickly reducing its power.
There are few ethical problems with laser weapons. Lasers appear to be just as humane — or inhumane, depending on how you look at it — as any other weapon. Where users like the U.S. military might run into trouble is if a laser is mounted on a drone, but in that case, like other drone-mounted weapons, it's the ethics of drone warfare up for debate and not the weapon mounted on it.
Laser weapons are rapidly entering service. The U.S. Navy believes it could have a plan to equip the fleet with lasers by 2018. The U.S. Air Force has issued a challenge to the defense industry to put a laser weapon on AC-130 gunships by 2020, and there is consideration toward putting them in B-1 and B-2 bombers.
It's difficult to say what the broader implications are of the laser battlefield, from operations against terrorists to full-scale conventional war. We may be entering an era where everything and anything can be shot down, with implications for the future of manned aircraft. This may push future forces to be even quicker and more agile. Today it's one thing to be targeted and another to be hit; in the future being targeted and being hit will be the same thing.
Whatever the implications are, the U.S. military wants to find out first.

Lesson from McCarthy, Era of Inevitability Over!

Conservative Review ^ | October 8th, 2015 | Daniel Horowitz 

When Mark Meadows introduced the resolution to depose John Boehner in July, the political world scoffed at him, noting that Boehner would inevitably fight-off any attempt to unseat him. This was an “ill-conceived” effort.
When Boehner’s inevitability turned into his demise a few weeks ago, we were told that Kevin McCarthy – the next political hack in line – would inevitably be the next Speaker. All resistance is futile. Even as recently as yesterday in Politico, establishment GOP members were taking shots at conservatives, acting as if they still held all the cards. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) said, “The question isn’t on us, it’s on the so-called Freedom Caucus – I don’t call them the Freedom Caucus – do they want to be part of a united caucus, or do they want to continue how they are? A lot of us say this, I respect them as legislators, and a lot of them are my friends. But they got the scalp of [Speaker John] Boehner, in their mind, and I think we’re done giving them concessions.” Today we got the news that Kevin McCarthy is pulling out of the race for Speaker.
These events didn’t occur in a vacuum. A group of disparate conservatives who languished ineffectively in the lower chamber for several years finally understood the leverage they have by joining together as a caucus.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ted Cruz’s audacious plan to win the GOP nomination

WashPo ^ | 10/9/15 | George Will 

If America’s 58th presidential election validates Ted Cruz’s audacious “base plus” strategy, he will have refuted assumptions about the importance of independent “swing” voters and the inertia of many missing voters. Critics say his plan for pursuing the Republican nomination precludes winning the presidency. Jason Johnson, Cruz’s chief strategist, responds: “I’m working backward from Election Day,” because Cruz’s plan for winning the necessary 1,236 convention delegates is an extrapolation from his strategy for winning 270 electoral votes.
All presidential campaigns aspire to favorably change the composition of the electorate. Cruz aims to substantially reconfigure the electorate as it has recently been.
Between George W. Bush’s 2000 election and his 2004 reelection, the turnout of non-Hispanic whites increased by an astonishing 10 million. Barack Obama produced a surge of what Johnson calls “two-election voters.” In 2008, the African American voting rate increased from 2004 while white voting declined slightly; in 2012, African Americans voted at a higher rate than whites.
Florida in 2012, turnout of non-Hispanic whites declined from 2008 even though the eligible voting-age population increased by 864,000. Nationally, the Census Bureau’s Thom File writes: “The number of non-Hispanic white voters decreased by about 2 million between 2008 and 2012.” In the past five elections (1996-2012), their share of eligible voters declined from 79.2 percent to 71.1 percent and their share of the turnout declined from 82.5 percent to 73.7 percent, while the Hispanic and black shares of votes cast increased about four and three percentage...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Texas could deal with illegals’ birth certification

Canada Free Press ^ | 10/09/15 | A. Dru Kristenev 

Minor children carry the national citizenship of their parents, no matter where they are born, just as a child born to American parents overseas is still an American citizen. There are no special circumstances for anyone
There is a problem of illegal immigrants delivering their babies on the US side of the southern border and demanding birth certificates that, they believe, would settle US citizenship on the children. With the upcoming hearing of a suit filed against Texas Department of State Health Services for a refusal to accept the unsecured matricula consular I.D. card issued by Mexican consulates, there is an answer that could resolve the problem.
First, despite media sources erroneously reporting that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States “guarantees the right of citizenship to children born here,” there is no such provision within the Constitution. Secondly, the matricula is an identification card for Mexican nationals, proving the individual carrying one, without accompanying valid visa, to be illegally present in the United States, notwithstanding they’re working, on welfare or possess a driver’s license.

This is what Trump's border wall could cost US

CNBC ^ | October 9, 2015 | Kate Drew, special to 

A roughly 2,000-mile fence on the Mexican border would cost tens of billions.

If Donald Trump were to build a wall along the United States' southern border, it would cost billions.
The U.S. border with Mexico is roughly 2,000 miles long and underlines four states from California to Texas. It is a massive stretch of land — the Berlin Wall spanned just 96 miles comparatively, and it cost about $25 million to build in 1961, or around $200 million with inflation.
Building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants is not a novel plan. About 670 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border was completed in accordance with the Bush administration's Secure Fence Act of 2006. That alone cost about $2.4 billion, for roughly one-third of the entire border and, according to migration experts, some of the easier and less costly areas to fence.
The Secure Fence Act called for 700 miles of fencing, with a double layer throughout, but much of the barrier isn't reinforced this way. Even before the fence reached its first stage of completion, some argued it was not being constructed properly....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump’s Latino Superfan Baffles CNN’s Baldwin: He Is ‘My Perfect Man’!

You Tube via YouHotNews ^ | 10-9-2015 | You Tube via CNN 

Donald Trump’s Latino Superfan Myriam Witcher Baffles CNN’s Baldwin: He Is ‘My Perfect Man’. In his ongoing quest to prove that Latinos do, in fact, “love” him, Donald Trump brought a Hispanic woman named Myriam Witcher up on stage at his Las Vegas rally Thursday night who could not love him more.

“Yes, Mr. Trump! We love you! We love you, all the way to the White House!” she exclaimed, her hands held high in the air.
On Friday, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin tried to get to the bottom of how this woman could possibly feel the way she does about Trump.

“Oh my God, he is coming — he is our man sent from heaven. He is a very, very beautiful human being, beautiful heart, a lot of love and compassion,” Witcher gushed, citing Trump’s charity work and books on business as the origins of her support for the GOP frontrunner.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Another massacre, another charade

Washington Post ^ | Oct. 8 ,2015 | Charles Krauthammer 

Here’s the cycle of poverty. There’s the cycle of violence. And then there’s the cycle of gun talk. It starts with a mass shooting. Gun-control advocates blame the deaths on gun-control opponents, who argue, in turn, that none of the proposed restrictions would have had any effect on the incident in question. The debate goes nowhere. The media move on.
Until the next incident, when the cycle begins again.

So with the Roseburg massacre in Oregon. Within hours, President Obama takes to the microphones to furiously denounce the National Rifle Association and its ilk for resisting “common-sense gun-safety laws.” His harangue is totally sincere, totally knee-jerk and totally pointless. At the time he delivers it, he — and we — know practically nothing about the shooter, nothing about the weapons, nothing about how they were obtained.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

AZ sheriff: Feds ‘refusing’ to prosecute illegals! ^ | Oct 9, 2015 | Olaf Ekberg 

Yuma County, Arizona Sheriff Leon Wilmot is tired of his county’s taxpayers paying to recapture illegal immigrants because of the federal government’s refusal to enforce the law.
“If you are not going to do your job and we have to do it for you, you should be paying us,” Wilmot tells KYMA.
Wilmot says his department has arrested illegal immigrants for drug smuggling and identity theft, but the U.S. District Attorney “fails to prosecute them.” The sheriff says the feds’ inaction is costing Yuma County taxpayers about a million dollars a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Reuters ^ | Alana Wise 

Just days before she will take the stage in the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton's lead over rival Bernie Sanders has narrowed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Clinton's support among Democratic voters fell 10 points within less than a week. From October 4 to October 9, Clinton saw her support tumble from 51 percent of Democratic support to just 41 percent. Her nearest competitors, Vermont Senator Sanders and Vice President of the U.S. Joe Biden, who has yet to decide whether he will run, both made gains. Support for Sanders jumped from just over 24 percent to 28 percent, and Biden rose from 16 percent to a even 20 percent in the same time period. This is not the first time that Clinton’s support has taken a steep nosedive. Just last month, Sanders edged within eight points of the former secretary of state — Clinton at 39 percent; Sanders at 31.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. colonel: Tapes show Bergdahl joined Taliban

WorldNetDaily ^ | September 22, 2015 | Bob Unruh 

A retired military colonel, now a Fox News analyst, has dropped a bombshell in the case of Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. Army sergeant held for five years by the Taliban who is charged with desertion and misbehaving before the enemy.
Retired Col. David Hunt says Bergdahl actually joined the Taliban, and recordings prove it.
Further, he notes the U.S. government has failed to make use of that evidence in the case against Bergdahl, who was returned to the U.S. in a stunning trade for five top terrorists held at Guantanamo.
Appearing on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show, Hunt said the Obama administration has tapes proving Bergdahl deserted to the Taliban.
“June 30, 2009, Bergdahl deserts his post in southeast Afghanistan,” he said. “July 1st and 2nd, in a standard briefing to a commander of his unit, Fourth Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, we have tapes of Taliban talking on Bergdahl’s phone saying that Bergdahl wanted to join them. And we have the Taliban on their own phones talking about Bergdahl trying to join them.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why Obamacare Penalties in 2016 Will Be the Worst Yet

Fool ^ | 6/08/15 

For 2014, the penalties were relatively small. The minimum amount was $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, which, for large families, is capped at a total of $285. If your income is higher, though, then your penalty could be as much as 1% of whatever income you earn over the tax filing threshold. In general, individuals making more than $20,000 have had to pay a higher penalty than the base $95 amount, and families making above certain higher limits have had to pay more than the $285 cap.

This year, though, the penalty amounts are ratcheting up significantly. The corresponding per-person amounts soar in 2015 to $325 per adult and $162.50 per child, up to a family maximum of $975. But 2% of your household income above your tax filing threshold is higher, then that's generally what you'll owe.

2016: The worst year yet for Obamacare penalties The penalties reach their worst next year, with huge increases coming once again. The per-person charge in 2016 jumps to $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, topping out at a whopping $2,085 per family. The income-based penalty rises to 2.5%.

After that, increases will be more modest. The amount of the Obamacare penalty in 2017 and thereafter will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index, with maximums gradually rising over time.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...