WyBlog, the best thing about New Jersey since the invention of the 24 hour diner.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan
CH 2.0 Info Center
The Jersey Report
Labor Union Report
Net Right Nation
The Patriot Post Newsletter
Victor Davis Hanson
J! E! T! S! Jets! Jets! Jets!
NJ.com Caldwell Forum
The Caldwells Patch
The Jersey Tomato Press
"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes."
#VRWC Twitter feed:
Even in the most socialist state in the nation, socialism fails.
Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin is canceling his dream plan to create a single-payer health system in the state, he announced Wednesday.
"I am not going to undermine the hope of achieving critically important health care reforms for this state by pushing prematurely for single payer when it is not the right time for Vermont," Shumlin said in a statement Wednesday. "In my judgment, now is not the right time to ask our legislature to take the step of passing a financing plan for Green Mountain Care."
The problem, of course, is simple. There just isn't enough Other People's Money to pay for it.
The problem is, of course, how to pay for it. Even while plans were moving forward for a 2017 launch of the single-payer system, to be called Green Mountain Care, Shumlin had held off on releasing a plan for how to pay for the system, waiting until his announcement Wednesday.
Tax hikes required to pay for the system would include a 11.5 percent payroll tax as well as an additional income tax ranging all the way up to 9.5 percent. Shumlin admitted that in the current climate, such a precipitous hike would be disastrous for Vermont's economy.
Oops. You know a tax hike is too onerous if a Democrat comes out against it. And then his buddy Obama wouldn't cough up any cash either.
Shumlin's office released a slideshow with more details about financing for the plan which fell through. The state had been anticipating $267 million in federal funding to revamp its system, courtesy of a 2013 Obamacare waiver — but the current estimate has fallen to $106 million. Vermont also overestimated by $150 million in federal Medicaid funding.
The final nail in the coffin? Single Payer won't actually cost less than the current system.
But beyond federal funding, the report also admits that the single-payer system won't save money as Vermont officials had planned. While both previous reports on Green Mountain Care had assumed "hundreds of millions of dollars" in savings in the very first year of operation, Shumlin's office is now admitting that's "not practical to achieve."
There's never a magic unicorn around when you need one.
Let this be a lesson to all you Obamacare lovers. Government meddling in the
free market is never a good thing. Your dreams of a universal
Euroweenie-style Single Payer "upgrade" to Obamacare just met Reality. And,
to almost no one's surprise, Reality won.
So I'm perusing the Star-Ledger business page during lunch and what do I see? An article reprinted from Bloomberg News about an upcoming price increase for eggs. And why are a dozen eggs going to get more expensive? Well, you can thank California's birdbrain animal rights nuts for that.
Eggs are about to get more expensive, as California moves to make sure hen houses are roomy enough to allow the birds to lay down, stand up, extend their wings and dance around.
Farmers nationwide who want to continue selling to the most populous U.S. state are moving to comply with a new law, taking effect next month, that requires the larger cages. They either must build more hen houses, or house fewer birds in the ones they have, raising their costs.
Wholesale egg prices already average a record $2.27 a dozen nationally, up 34 percent from a year earlier. With the new law, the price Californians pay may jump as much as 20 percent for shell eggs in three to six months, according to Dermot J. Hayes, an agribusiness professor at Iowa State University in Ames. The rest of the country will probably follow suit, he said.
"You're going to see some really large spikes in the price of eggs in January," said Scott Ramsdell, who owns Dakota Layers LLP in Flandreau, South Dakota.
California imports more than 30 percent of its eggs from other states. A California Department of Food and Agriculture rule says that an enclosure containing nine or more hens that produce eggs sold in the state needs at least 116 square inches (748 square centimeters) of floor space for each bird, a 73 percent boost over the current standard.
Voters in California approved Proposition 2 in 2008 calling for egg-laying hens to have space to move. Subsequently, Assembly Bill 1437 was signed into law, applying to all eggs sold in the shell in the state. These rules all go into effect Jan. 1.
Dancing chickens! Because our food isn't expensive enough already, right?
Who does this idiocy hurt the most? Not the limousine liberals lounging around eating cage-free omelets, that's for sure. Poor people. Raising the price of eggs hurts poor people.
The price disruptions have arrived just as consumption is increasing. Rising prices for beef, pork and chicken have made eggs a more popular source of protein. The average American will eat 266 eggs next year, up from 261 this year and the most since 1980, according the the Egg Industry Center in Ames, Iowa.
Hit 'em when they're down!
Hey, the poor can always eat beans. They're high in protein, and
they're vegan too! That's gotta be California-approved.
Three times Barack Obama said his executive order would require illegal aliens to pay their back taxes before becoming eligible for amnesty. Guess what? He lied.
President Obama misspoke when he said that immigrants living illegally in the U.S. would have to "pay any back taxes" in order to qualify for work papers under the plan he initiated via executive action. They would not.
The immigration plan announced by Obama on Nov. 20 provides a temporary relief of three years from the threat of deportation to parents who are in the country illegally but who have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The parents must have lived in the United States for at least five years, and they must register, and pass background checks in order to obtain the reprieve. The White House estimates that 5 million people are eligible for "provisional unlawful presence waivers." If they meet certain requirements, those immigrants also would be given work authorization for three years.
For immigrants who step forward, the procedure is to make sure that they "start paying their fair share of taxes" so they can "temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time," says a White House fact sheet. The key word in there is "start." There is no mechanism to require immigrants in the country illegally to pay any back taxes in order to obtain a three-year work authorization.
An Obama administration official told us the president misspoke when he said that immigrants would have to "pay any back taxes."
"Misspoke." Uh, huh. Sure. Absolutely. Simple misunderstanding. Coulda happened to anybody. No foul, right?
Except, and this is where your blood will really start to boil, the reality is they won't pay any taxes at all. They'll most likely receive payments from Uncle Sam in the form of refundable tax credits instead.
President Obama's unilateral executive action on immigration will make hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million, illegal immigrants eligible for federal transfer payments. That will be done primarily through two widely used programs — the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, and the Additional Child Tax Credit, or ACTC.
The two programs, intended for low-income workers, are what is known as refundable tax credits. That means they give workers a tax refund that is larger than their tax liability. So a family with a tax bill of $1,000 might receive an EITC "refund" of $5,000, meaning the family doesn't write a check to the government but rather receives a check from the government. The ACTC works similarly for low-income workers with children.
Wealth transfer. From the hardworking U.S. taxpayer, to a bunch of third-world grifters. With massive amounts of fraud thrown in for good measure. What's not to like?
As it turns out, those two programs are already among the most corrupt and fraud-ridden in the entire federal government. A newly-released report from the inspector general of the Internal Revenue Service confirms that the EITC is plagued by fraud (which was already well known) and also reveals for the first time that the ACTC is even worse.
According to the inspector general, the IRS paid out $63 billion in EITC benefits in 2013. Of that, 24 percent, or about $15 billion, was given improperly to people not qualified to receive it. That improper payment rate has been enough to qualify the EITC as a "high risk" program for years.
The IRS paid out $26.6 billion in ACTC credits in 2013. The inspector general reports the child credit improper payment rate for that year was somewhere between 25.2 percent and 30.5 percent — worse than the EITC.
Considering that federal law defines a program as having "significant improper payments" when such payments exceed 2.5 percent of all the money the program sends out, those are pretty terrible numbers.
So far the IRS hasn't done anything to combat fraud in either the EITC or ACTC program. The IG report notes that as much as $148 billion dollars in improper payments have been made in the last decade at a rate that has remained relatively unchanged during that whole time. For comparison purposes, $148 billion is more than the feds spent on veterans benefits last year.
But instead of combating such massive fraud, the IRS spent its time investigating Tea Party groups. Priorities dontcha know.
Clearly, when Obama told illegal aliens they could stay if they "paid their fair share" what he really meant was "here, have some free money." And, come to think of it, probably an Obamaphone too.
Thanks John Boehner.
You enabled this by ramming CRomnibus down our throats. You betrayed the
people who gave you an overwhelming majority, and you stuck us with the bill.
Hey Obamabots, what good is "affordable" health insurance if it costs you too much to use it?
In a survey taken in the fall, The Commonwealth Fund, a private, independent health care research organization, found that about 40 percent of adults nationwide who had high-deductible private insurance plans reported delaying care because of the cost.
In another, the Gallup Poll, which annually asks about health care cost and use every November, reported that the percentage of Americans who had insurance and chose not to go to a health care professional for a routine visit or a need because of cost hit an all-time high of 34 percent.
"Last year, many hoped that the opening of the government health care exchanges and the resulting increase in the number of Americans with health insurance would enable more people to seek medical treatment," Gallup said. "But, despite a drop in the uninsured rate, a slightly higher percentage of Americans than in previous years report having put off medical treatment, suggesting that the Affordable Care Act has not immediately affected this measure."
The problem is easy to identify but difficult to solve. Health care is extremely expensive in the U.S., and to keep from busting their budgets, companies that provide coverage to their employees and families increasingly are turning to plans that keep monthly premiums lower by increasing deductibles and charging more for out-of-pocket costs, said Linda Schwimmer, vice president of the New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute.
"More and more of [the cost] is being put on the employee, and because of that, they're reluctant to get the care they need because they're concerned about the cost," she said.
Once again proving that the Affordable Care Act is a total misnomer.
Obamacare will never cut costs. It can't. Not with all of it's mandates and required coverages. So to artificially lower the up-front cost of health insurance it had to hike the back-end copays and deductibles that kick in when we actually go to use it.
The result? Pay through the nose, or go without medical care.
Given the abysmal Obama economy, the choice is clear. Feed your kids, and skip the colonoscopy. To most folks a $4,000 deductible might as well be $400,000. And those $75 prescriptions buy a whole lotta diapers.
The best part is, Obama knew he was hoodwinking us. And he didn't care. That's the real story of Jonathan Gruber.
Gruber's attempt to downplay his role in the ACA is unconvincing, for reasons we suggested here. But the most damming comments by Gruber were not his "glib" words about the American public but his accurate analysis of the Affordable Care Act. For instance, in one of the videos that became controversial, Gruber is taped saying "What the American public cares about is costs. And that's why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control." That is not glib; regardless of whether you think the law was sold deceptively in the way Gruber suggests, his understanding of the law's focus on coverage over cost is correct. Whether or not Gruber was "the architect" of the law, whether or not his more noxious comment can fairly be associated with the law, he understands the law—and that is damming enough.
They purposefully obfuscated Obamacare's effects. Obama lied, health care died.
Housing bubble? What housing bubble? Laissez les bon temps roller!
Yes America, thanks to Obama's cronies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac you can once again buy a house with only 3% down, and the U.S. taxpayer will underwrite the loan!
Housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Monday released the final guidelines for low down payment mortgage loans, reviving a practice that critics say could eventually lead to defaults and another financial crisis.
Fannie and Freddie announced that eligible first-time homebuyers could now obtain mortgage loans with down payments as low as 3 percent. Both entities still purchase a majority of loans in the housing market and remain under government conservatorship after the 2008 crisis.
Fannie and Freddie, known as government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), said that borrowers would have to clear several hurdles before they could take out the loan. Those include obtaining private mortgage insurance, providing income documentation and verification, and seeking homebuyer education and counseling.
Which are exactly the same "hurdles" Countrywide erected before the last crash.
What was that line about those who refuse to learn the lessons of history?
Peter Wallison, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and former general counsel to the U.S. Treasury Department under President Ronald Reagan, said in an interview that the new loans could eventually inject more risk into the housing market.
Required premiums for mortgage insurance will raise the cost of homes, he argued, making them unaffordable for many buyers. Pressure will then mount to make the mortgages more accessible, and risky.
"When those loans do not really result in any significant numbers in increased low-income loans, they will reduce the underwriting standards further," he said.
"Eventually we'll be back in a situation a year from now in which many of these loans will look like the loans before the financial crisis," he added.
The low down payment loans could also be a political move to placate Democrats who have long pushed for looser lending standards to aid low-income borrowers, Wallison said.
Because requiring low-income people to actually pay their bills is racist. And Obama promised to pay their mortgage.
And by Obama, she means, us.
Wallison noted that taxpayers will again foot the bill if Fannie and Freddie's mortgage loans default in large numbers. Treasury provided $188 billion to the GSEs in 2008 to keep them afloat.
"The only reason banks will make these loans is that they can sell them to Fannie and Freddie," he said. "Taxpayers are going to take the risk."
Hey, what's another $188 billion or so when you're fighting for Social Justice?
Remember when we used to earn interest on our bank accounts? Ben Bernanke put a stop to that by printing money like it was going out of style. And now Janet Yellen is one-upping him. Forget zero interest, welcome to negative interest.
New Obama Administration reserve rules mean you'll have to pay the bank to store your money.
As the WSJ reports, far from paying for the privilege of holding other people's cash (and why would they with nearly $3 trillion in positive carry excess reserves sloshing around) US banks - primarily of the TBTF variety - "are urging some of their largest customers in the U.S. to take their cash elsewhere or be slapped with fees, citing new regulations that make it onerous for them to hold certain deposits."
The change upends one of the cornerstones of banking, in which deposits have been seen as one of the industry's most attractive forms of funding, said more than a dozen corporate officials, consultants and bank executives interviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Banks aren't using their deposits to make loans anymore because the Fed's trillions in excess reserves have made all that cash completely irrelevant.
And in a truly through-the-looking-glass paradox, the Fed says they're pushing this thievery in order to make bank deposits "safer."
U.S. banking rules set to go into effect Jan. 1 compound the issue, especially for deposits that are viewed as less likely to stay at the bank through difficult times.
The new U.S. rules, designed to make bank balance sheets more resistant to the types of shocks that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis, will likely have little effect on retail deposits, insured up to $250,000 by federal deposit insurance. But the rules do affect larger deposits that often come from big corporations, smaller banks and big financial firms such as hedge funds. Hundreds of companies and other bank customers with deposits that exceed the insurance limits could be affected by the banks' actions.
Overall, about $4 trillion in deposits at banks in the U.S. were uninsured, covering more than 3.5 million accounts, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data
The rule primarily responsible involves the liquidity coverage ratio, overseen by the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators. The new measure, finalized in September, as well as some other recent global regulations, are designed to make banks safer by helping them manage sudden outflows of deposits in a crisis. The banks are required to maintain enough high-quality assets that could be converted into cash during a crisis to cover a projected flight of deposits over 30 days.
Because large, uninsured deposits would be expected to leave most quickly, the rule will now require that banks maintain reserves that they cannot use for profitable activities like making loans. That makes it much less efficient or profitable for banks to hold these deposits.
And what will the banks use to maintain these new reserves? Why the very financial instruments you'd want to move your now unprofitable deposits into.
Some argue that while it is a good policy on its face, the rule potentially magnifies problems in a recession by encouraging banks to hoard high-quality assets, potentially paralyzing markets for these assets such as Treasury securities and some corporate bonds.
"This proposal, which is supposed to promote financial stability, actually does the opposite," said Thomas Quaadman, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Obama Administration doesn't want "stability."
They want your money in the stock market, to keep the Dow and Nasdaq and S&P indexes artificially high. The only thing holding their illusion of a "recovery" afloat is the bubble in equities. It's gotta stay pumped up until Obama leaves office (in order to cement his "legacy") regardless of the risk to individual savers like you and me.
Practically speaking, it means that before all is said and done, banks will be charging usurious rates of interest on even the smallest bank deposits, in a push to get every last "saver" to reallocate their wealth away from pieces of fiat paper into pieces of paper promises (held by the DTCC no less) to be paid by increasingly more cash-flow deficient companies.
The inevitable crash is going to be epic.
They dug, and they dug, and they dug. And they found nothing.
A report summarizing a yearlong investigation by the legislative panel examining the George Washington Bridge lane closures found no evidence of Governor Christie's involvement but concluded that two of his allies acted "with perceived impunity" when they gridlocked Fort Lee's streets apparently for political reasons.
The committee's 136-page report, drawing off sworn testimony, private interviews and thousands of subpoenaed documents, also highlights the unsuccessful efforts by a now-shuttered arm of Christie's office to court the Fort Lee mayor's endorsement, finding that the closures were "motivated in part by political considerations."
The report states there is "no conclusive evidence" as to whether the governor "was or was not" aware of the lane closures or involved in directing them.
Two knuckleheads did something stupid. Chris Christie fired them. Those are the facts. Everything else is politically-motivated posturing.
The governor's office released a statement late Thursday in response to the report from the attorney it hired to conduct its own investigation.
"The committee has finally acknowledged what we reported nine months ago — namely, that there is not a shred of evidence Governor Christie knew anything about the GWB lane realignment beforehand or that any current member of his staff was involved in that decision," attorney Randy Mastro said. "Thus, the committee's work has simply corroborated our comprehensive investigation. And with this inquiry behind it, the governor and his office can now focus on doing what they do best — serving the public interest."
Alas, the Ready For Hillary crowd isn't giving up.
The "interim report" also leaves open the possibility of continuing the inquiry. In the summer, federal prosecutors asked the panel not to call central figures in the scandal so as to avoid interfering with the criminal investigation. "The report will be supplemented should additional material information be obtained," it concludes.
Translation? "We'll continue this witch hunt until Hillary is safely ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." The gang accusing Christie of orchestrating a partisan stunt is itself engaging in blatantly partisan demagoguery. They've invested too much in their preferred narative to back down now. And a compliant press will gleefully flog this dead horse for the next 23 months. Because the point of their charade never was to find the truth, it's always been about embarrassing Chris Christie's presidential ambitions.
Mission not accomplished. Like I said, oops.
The next phase of Dear Leader's "fundamental transformation" of America is complete. With our economy in tatters, China is now the world's number 1 economic powerhouse.
We're no longer No. 1. Today we're No. 2. Yes, it's official. The Chinese economy just overtook the United States economy to become the largest in the world. For the first time since Ulysses S. Grant was president, America is no longer the leading economic power on the planet.
The International Monetary Fund recently released the latest numbers for the world economy. And when you measure national economic output in "real" terms of goods and services, China will this year produce $17.6 trillion — compared to $17.4 trillion for the U.S.A.
As recently as 2000, we produced nearly three times as much as the Chinese.
To put the numbers slightly differently, China now accounts for 16.5% of the global economy when measured in real purchasing power terms, compared to 16.3% for the U.S.
This latest economic earthquake follows the development last year when China surpassed the U.S. for the first time in terms of global trade.
These calculations are based on a well-established and widely used economic measure known as "purchasing power parity" (or PPP), which measures the actual output as opposed to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. So a Starbucks Venti Frappucino served in Beijing counts the same as a Venti Frappucino served in Minneapolis, regardless of what happens to be going on among foreign exchange traders.
PPP is the real way of comparing economies. It is one reported by the IMF and was, for example, the one used by McKinsey & Co. consultants back in the 1990s when they undertook a study of economic productivity on behalf of the British government.
Make no mistake. This is a geopolitical earthquake with a high reading on the Richter scale. Throughout history, political and military power have always depended on economic power. Britain was the workshop of the world before she ruled the waves. And it was Britain's relative economic decline that preceded the collapse of her power.
And it was a similar story with previous hegemonic powers such as France and Spain.
Collapsing the power of the United States is Obama's stated goal. He was indoctrinated in the anti-colonialist dialectic at his father's knee, and forged in radical Marxism by Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Here you have the inevitable result of his presidency — a measurable, and probably irreversable, decline of American power and influence.
Our children will live in a world dominated by communist China. Think about
that. Think long and hard, and thank an Obama voter for making the future
bleaker for everyone.
Obamacare is "working" dontcha know, except for that pesky affordability thing. Sylvia Burwell came to Newark today, to shill for her boss's signature statutory sensation, and she inadvertantly told the truth.
Burwell acknowledged that affordability is still a high hurdle for many, however. Affordability, whether in the cost of the premium, the deductible, co-payments or co-insurance "is one of the fundamental issues" keeping people from getting health insurance, she said.
"We need to work on putting downward pressure on those costs," Burwell said.
So, a fundamental issue with Obamacare is affordability. Even though its official name is The Affordable Care Act.
Gee, a cynic might think they lied to us about that "affordable" thing.
Obamacare has done nothing to constrain costs. In fact, it has added costs to virtually everyone's health insurance bills for coverages none of us ever wanted or needed. The point is for guys like me to subsidize health care for layabouts, feminuts, and illegal aliens. And with a 2015 premium increase of 28%, I can assure you, I'm subsidizing more than my "fair share."
I'm not alone. I can point you to thousands of people in the same boat. We're paying more money for crappier coverage. Higher deductibles. Shrunken networks. Fewer doctors. Unrenewable prescriptions.
It's deliberate. And if we don't stand up and yell "STOP," it's never gonna end. The Obamunists are determined to redistribute our hard-earned dollars to their voting bloc, because holding on to power is their only goal. The Affordable Care Act was never meant to reduce costs or make health care "affordable." Its only purpose was to create havoc in the health insurance marketplace so that government could step in to regulate our choices.
They're from the government and they're here to help.
Alas, vestiges of freedom linger. Liberty isn't (yet) a dirty word. We are at
a crossroads. Obamacare, or America, must die. We can't have both. The Founding
Fathers chose independence. We must not countenance nullification of their
There are 28,139 students enrolled in the Paterson, NJ public schools.
A grand total of 19 of them are considered ready for college.
In Paterson, New Jersey only 19 kids who took the SAT's are considered college ready. This means that they scored at least a 1500 out of 2400 on the standardized test, and this number is truly shocking considering how large the school district is.
Shocking? I'll give you shocking.
Payroll records show the number of city school district employees making at least $125,000 has doubled over the past five years, an increase that comes as test scores for Paterson students remain among the lowest in the state.
At present, 66 Paterson Public Schools employees make at least $125,000, the records show. During the 2010-11 school year, the district had 33 employees above the $125,000 mark.
Most of the increase has occurred among central office administrators. In 2010-11, the district had 18 principals earning more than $125,000 and 15 non-principals, the records show. This year, there are 28 principals and 38 non-principals at or above the $125,000 mark.
In some instances, the increase stems from people who already were on the payroll and simply got raises or promotions, the records show. In other cases, the district created new high-salaried jobs.
The educrats take care of their own. The kids? Not so much.
By the way, Paterson is one of New Jersey's sainted Abbott districts, so state taxpayers are on the hook for more than 90% of their school budget, to "equalize" per-pupil spending. Or something. This year they're getting $456,463,506 of our hard-earned tax dollars.
I'll spell that out for you. Four Hundred and Fifty Six million dollars. So 19 kids can pass the SAT.
Superintendent Donnie Evans (annual salary, $215,000) has an answer for that.
The Paterson school district said that they no longer use SAT scores to gauge students' success.
You can't make this stuff up.
Why does a New Jersey game warden need an M-14?
The M-14 is an assault rifle capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute.
New Jersey's Division of Fish and Wildlife, whose conservation officers enforce the state's wildlife laws and regulations, now has 16 of the military rifles — all acquired from the Department of Defense.
Because, shut up.
"This is a fully engaged police agency that patrols more than 800,000 acres in all 21 counties, plus our waterways, and faces a wide-ranging variety of policing issues," said DEP spokesman Larry Ragonese. "There are a variety of tactical considerations as to why these rifles are issued, and for their potential use. But we will not engage in a public dialogue in the media to detail our operational procedures."
I can smell the arrogance from here. Fishing without a license is a serious offense, and don't you dare forget that, punk.
Besides, that kid on a quad needs to feel the fear. And the fusilade from an M-14 is just the thing to keep him in line, unless, you know, you're sane.
Sadly though the militarization of our police will never end. The cops like their shiny toys. And they especially like being able to lord them over us peons, who aren't even allowed to own an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle any more. The Pentagon is happy to oblige, since they're got warehouses full of esoteric weaponry in search of a home.
Old and busted: To protect, and serve.
New hotness: Gun control for thee, but not for me!
Gee, I feel safer already.
No NJ farmers use pig gestation crates. But that didn't stop our state's grandstanding Democrats from passing a bill to ban them here, and then daring Chris Christie to veto it.
Your move, poseurs.
Decrying what he called "partisan politicians" seeking "a political cudgel" with which to beat him, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed legislation banning the use of pig gestation crates in New Jersey today.
In a statement released to the media, Christie urged legislators "to turn their attention to actual problems facing New Jersey" noting he rejected nearly identical legislation last year sponsored by the same legislators. At that time, both the N.J. State Board of Agriculture and Department of Agriculture found the bill to be unnecessary.
"I will rely on our in-state experts rather than the partisan politicians who sponsor this bill. These facts are no less true today," Christie said.
The bill, which Christie called "a solution in search of a problem," gained national notoriety not so much for the effect it would have on New Jersey's actual swine — there are only 9,000 in the state, according to USDA statistics — but on Christie's political fortunes: Iowa is not only home to the first-in-the-nation political caucuses for the 2016 presidential election, but to 20 million pigs. Nearly one-third of the nation's hogs are raised in Iowa, where hog farming alone represents $7.5 billion in total economic activity for the state, according to the Iowa Pork Producers Association.
Hillary's minions want to embarrass Christie. So they ginned up a bill that was more popular in Hollywood than in the Garden State.
Still, the vetoed bill had attracted the attention of Hollywood celebrities. The Humane Society organized a campaign with letters from stars like Danny DeVito, Bob Barker and Bill Maher; Jon Stewart mocked Christie's planned veto from his perch on "The Daily Show."
Imagine a universe where anyone with a brain cared about what Bill Maher or Jon Stewart said. Then meet State Senator Ray Lesniak, the Democrats' point man on this gotcha.
This time, Lesniak said, he will wage a much harder campaign to override Christie's veto.
"It will be a campaign the likes of which has never been seen before. Supporters of this bill got 135,000 signatures asking the governor to sign it. From across the nation, but mostly from New Jersey. That army of supporters will be mobilized," Lesniak said.
If only Lesniak could "mobilize" people to solve our actual problems. You know, small things like crime, poverty, unemployment, and high taxes. Nope. Pigs. Pigs are what moves him to action. Theoretical pigs at that, given how, like I said, nobody in New Jersey actually uses gestation crates.
It's theater of the absurd, playing out to distract us from Lesniak's team's policy failures. The Democrat brand took a beating earlier this month. Chuck Schumer is breaking ranks to lambaste Obamacare. The #Ferguson "protests" have exposed the dark underbelly of Obama's race pimping friends. And the discovery of Lois Lerner's "lost" emails threatens to derail the carefully crafted narrative of the IRS supposedly targeting liberal organizations too.
People have finally figured out that the Democrats are full of, er, manure.
And Chris Christie isn't going to wallow in their slop.
Last night when I heard that the Grand Jury cleared Officer Darren Wilson of all charges in the shooting death of "gentle giant" Michael Brown I immediately had one thought — like Ray Donovan, which office does Darren Wilson go to to get his reputation back?
Not Eric Holder's Justice Department. They're marching down the path to double jeopardy, finalizing federal "civil rights" charges against Officer Wilson.
Not the newsrooms of our media barons. I made the mistake of listening to George Stephanopolous this morning, parroting the Brown family's attorney blaming "the system" for failing to indict Wilson. "The family hoped 'the system' would work." Followed by, "'the system' let them down."
Here's a newsflash George. "The system" worked. Just like it did when O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" by a jury of his peers. You may not like the result, but we are a nation of laws* and it's time for everyone to remember that.
(*Arguably the funniest thing I heard all night, and a welcome respite from watching Buffalo put the beatdown on my hapless Jets.)
Instead, we get "justice" through … looting. And, of course, rioting. Because smashing a window to grab a bag of chips and a couple of forties is exactly like courageously refusing to sit in the back of the bus.
The real irony? "Protesters" robbing Ferguson Market and Liquor, again, even though it was plastered with pro-Michael-Brown posters. The mob doesn't care who's livelihood they destroy. And our supposed "leaders" play them like pawns.
I'm thinking, if you wanted to set race relations back 50 years, you couldn't do a better job than the organizers behind these "spontaneous" demonstrations.
Oh, wait, read
this statement from the Congressional Black Caucus. Then weep for America.
While you're sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner this Thursday please remember to take a minute and bow your head in praise of Dear Leader and his latest salvo in the econuts' never-ending war on your wallet.
He's making the food you're eating more expensive.
He's ensuring the electricity you're using will be more expensive too.
And if you blink you'll miss the part where he just designated the puddles in your driveway as official "Waters Of The United States."
Yes, to combat the chimera of Climate Change, everything you do needs 3,415 more regulations, 3,415 more restrictions, and 3,415 more bureaucratic fiefdoms fecklessly fulminating for the fulfillment of Mother Gaia's global gloom jamboree.
Because they wouldn't dump this stuff in our laps on the eve of a major holiday if they thought we'd be cheering for it.
While Americans are focused on what delicious foods they're going to eat for Thanksgiving, the White House is focused on releasing its massive regulatory agenda— marking the fifth time the Obama administration has released its regulatory road map on the eve of a major holiday.
The federal Unified Agenda is the Obama administration's regulatory road map, and it lays out thousands of regulations being finalized in the coming months. Under President Barack Obama, there has been a tradition of releasing the agenda late on Friday— and right before a major holiday.
But the White House may have a good reason to do so because its Unified Agenda for fall 2014 includes some 3,415 regulations— more than the last regulatory agenda, and one that includes 189 rules that cost more than $100 million.
One of the most contentious rules is the Environmental Protection Agency rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. According to the agenda, these rules will be finalized in 2015.
Electricity rates will "necessarily" skyrocket.
Or, you'll freeze in the dark.
A more pressing EPA rule set to be finalized is the so-called coal ash rule for coal-fired power plants. A final rule will be issued by Dec. 19, and could be bad news for the power sector, which will bear the brunt of $20.3 billion in compliance costs.
Of course by "bear the brunt," Obama means, pass those costs on to you.
What? You thought renewable energy was competively priced? Bwhahahaha!
But probably the most fought-over rules to be finalized by the EPA next year will be its redefining of the "Waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The EPA will issue its redefinition next year, according to the agenda.
"The 'waters of the U.S.' rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," said Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter, adding "they want to take another step toward outright permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country, while at the same time providing a new tool for environmental groups to sue private property owners."
Anything to make your life more difficult! Your birdbath is now regulated by the EPA, and some ecotwit is undoubtedly planning to sue you over it.
Whatever you do, don't cry. Your tears are "waters of the U.S." too.
Ten Buck Friday was a success in seeing a majority of Republicans elected to the Senate and Harry Reid being relegated back to the Recycling Bin of History.
But there is one Senate race still undecided in Louisiana and that's our man Bill Cassidy against Mary "I live in Washington, D.C. but I list my residence as my parents' basement in LA so I can vote here" Landrieu.
A runoff means more campaigning, more advertising and more expenses. While it is true that the DSCC has officially withdrawn their ad buys for their dubious candidate, I'm sure there will be a host of surrogates trying to raise money for poor Mary, so she doesn't have to go out and get a real job. (And maybe really move in with her parents this time!)
So, I'm sure there will be tons of breathless fundraising emails about how Republicans eat babies and that's why the want to ban all forms of birth control, and, BTW, did you know they want to replace the national anthem with Tony Orlando's "Knock Three Times"? Crazy!
All of the sudden, after sitting on her hands for six years, Mary Landfill is a crusader for the Keystone XL pipeline. Not for getting it passed necessarily, but for bring it to a vote that she hopes will not sustain her president's veto.
Let me congratulate all of you for kicking Harry Reid's keister to the curb. Well done! And, unlike most politicians, I hate to keep coming back to you for money, so I promise, this is the last time!
Think of the nice warm schadenfreude feeling you got when Harry Reid was demoted. Now think of how warm and fuzzy you'll feel going into the holidays, if we give Mary Landrieu her just desserts as well?
Let's go the the well one last time before the holidays start taking up our time and energy, before the December runoff, and give an early present to Bill Cassidy (and yourself) of a larger majority in the US Senate.
Think how much happier Barack Obama will be at the prospect of governing in a bi-partisan manner. Actually, think of how much damage from the last six years needs to be undone over Barack Obama's vetoes and objections.
Just ten more bucks. It's what we honorary Koch brothers do.
You can contribute to Bill here.
And be sure to visit our fellow Ten Buck Friday bloggers:
Adrienne's Corner ·
Diogenes' Middle Finger ·
Fishersville Mike ·
For God, Family, and Country ·
Laughing Conservative ·
Left Coast Rebel ·
Mind Numbed Robot ·
Political Clown Parade ·
Proof Positive ·
Texas Conservative News ·
Theo Spark ·
Why do I love Ted Cruz?
This. This is why.
Today on the Senate floor he spoke the words of the great Marcus Tullius Cicero…
When, President Obama, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end to that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now? Do not the nightly guards placed on the border—do not the watches posted throughout the city—does not the alarm of the people, and the union of all good men and women—does not the precaution taken of assembling the senate in this most defensible place—do not the looks and countenances of this venerable body here present, have any effect upon you? Do you not feel that your plans are detected? Do you not see that your conspiracy is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge that every one here possesses of it? What is there that you did last night, what the night before—where is it that you were—who was there that you summoned to meet you—what design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
Shame on the age and its lost principles! The senate is aware of these things; the senate sees them; and yet this man dictates by his pen, and his phone. Dictates! Ah, he won't even come into the senate. He will not take part in the public deliberations; he ignores every individual among us. And we, gallant men and women, think that we are doing our duty to the republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks.
You ought, President Obama, long ago have been led to defeat by your own disdain for the people. That destruction which you have been long plotting ought to have already fallen.
What shall we, who are the senate, tolerate President Obama, openly desirous to destroy the Constitution and this republic? For I pass over older instances, such as how the IRS plotted to silence American citizens. There was—there was once such virtue in this republic that brave men would repress mischievous citizens with severer chastisement than the most bitter enemy. For we have a resolution of the senate, a formidable and authoritative decree against you, Mr. President; the wisdom of the republic is not at fault, nor the dignity of this senatorial body. We, we alone—I say it openly,—we, the senate, are waiting in our duty to stop this lawless administration and its unconstitutional amnesty.
The fate of America cannot be the fate of Rome. For surely as the Catiline conspiracy begat Ceasar, Ceasar's hubris begat the barbarian hordes. Obama's lawlessness will do no less to America. These "immigrants" to which he so desparately panders, they do not seek to become Americans or to join in our great journey. Rather they demand that America become the countries they fled, and that we who are here must adapt their culture and their language and their ways, sacrificing our own on the altar of political correctness.
And America as we knew her will cease to exist.
This imperial president must be stopped! America is not a dictatorship, no matter how much Obama wants to pretend he's Caesar. He has no regard for our laws, or for our Constitution, or for the people. He looks only to himself, and to the abrogration of power.
He has no right to rule by decree. He has no authority that is not enumerated in Article II. And yet he persists in flagrantly disregarding the separation of powers established by our forefathers, and thus perpetrating a crisis upon our republic.
There is but one remedy. Impeachment. Now. Or our children will be
It's an invasion. And New Jersey is at the front of the front lines. Over the past 4 years we've added more illegal aliens than any other state. Please, hold your applause.
New Jersey saw the largest recent increase in the size of its unauthorized immigrant population of any state in the country, according to a report released Tuesday by the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project.
(Click here to view the full study.)
New Jersey's unauthorized immigrants rose from 450,000 to 525,000 between 2009 and 2012, the report states, one of just seven states to see a rise in this segment of its population. The Garden State was followed by Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Nebraska, and Idaho.
Unauthorized immigrants made up more than 8 percent of state's workforce in 2012, the fourth-highest such percentage in the country.
Most of the new arrivals are from India and Ecuador.
Why they're choosing our fair state isn't clear. But a massive influx of semi-skilled, low-income, non-English-speaking undocumented residents has got to be putting a strain on our already weakened economy. Not to mention the public assistance resources they undoubtedly require, and dare I say it, demand as their birthright.
Add in Dear Leader's
determination to unconstitutionally legitimize their disregard for our laws
and I can't help but wonder how America As We Knew It survives this assault.
Why are Barack Obama and his cronies on the FCC so eager to reclassify internet service providers as "common carriers" like the phone company?
Money. Lots and lots of money. In the form of FCC Universal Service Fund and Subscriber Line Charge taxes. "Common Carriers" pay these taxes, which they pass along to you as line items on your phone bill. Internet companies don't pay, yet, and as we all know, the Democrats never met a tax they couldn't raise.
So the guys deciding on Net Neutrality are in the enviable position of profiting from the implementation of Net Neutrality. And they've got Big Plans for spending all that newly found revenue.
The tax, which could total over $7 per month on the typical American's broadband bill, would be imposed as a consequence of regulating the internet via "net neutrality" rules that President Obama has urged the FCC to adopt.
Under Obama's plan, Internet access providers — such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast — would be declared to be common carriers providing "telecommunications services." This would place those companies under comprehensive regulation by the FCC.
The move would mean that the companies would have to pay a portion of their Internet revenue to the FCC's "Universal Service Fund (USF)," which provides subsidies for Internet service. This fee currently is set at 16.1 percent of revenue, or $7.25 per subscriber per month according to one estimate.
And don't look for the FCC to waive this new found windfall. [FCC Commissioner Mike] O'Reilly (who opposes the plan) reports the FCC already is planning a "spending spree" on USF subsidies.
There it is. "Net Neutrality" is just another way for the government to take money from you and give it to someone else. They're busy pretending Comcast wants to charge you more for internet "fast lanes" when in reality it's the FCC who'll be reaching into your pocket.
Here's Ted Cruz, sounding presidential, making the case against Net Neutrality, in words even a Democrat can understand.
ObamaNet. It's ObamaPhones for the internet. Because what we really need is yet another entitlement program, staffed by unionized bureaucrats beholden to their Democratic Party masters, apportioning technological spoils in exchange for votes.
Just say "no" to Net Neutrality; keep the internet tax free. You'll be glad
Fewer Americans than ever like Obamacare.
And more Americans than ever hate Obamacare.
Can I get an "amen?"
As the Affordable Care Act's second open enrollment period begins, 37% of Americans say they approve of the law, one percentage point below the previous low in January. Fifty-six percent disapprove, the high in disapproval by one point.
The more you know…
Americans were slightly more positive than negative about the law around the time of the 2012 election, but they have consistently been more likely to disapprove than approve of the law in all surveys that have been conducted since then. Approval has been in the low 40% or high 30% range after a noticeable dip that occurred in early November 2013. This was shortly after millions of Americans received notices that their current policies were being canceled, which was at odds with President Barack Obama's pledge that those who liked their plans could keep them. The president later said, by way of clarification, that Americans could keep their plans if those plans didn't change after the ACA was passed.
And we now know it was all lies anyway.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) admitted Sunday to knowing the promises President Obama made about his signature health care plan were false. On ABC's This Week, fill-in host Martha Raddatz asked Gillibrand where she felt misled by Obama, considering the fact that the President said that Americans who wanted to keep their health care plans could do so.
Gillibrand offered a startling revelation:
He should've just been specific. No, we all knew. The whole point of the plan is to cover things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy. How many women, the minute they get pregnant, might risk their coverage. How many women paid more because of their gender, because they might get pregnant. Those are the reforms.
"We all knew" Obama was lying. But he lied for our own good! And so Sandra Fluke could get free birth control, of course.
Americans don't like it when politicians lie to us. We also don't like it when liberal political hacks call us stupid.
Turns out, we aren't as stupid as they think we are.
They passed the bill. We found out what's in it. And we don't like what we
found. Not one bit. Obamacare is a fraud. The sooner it goes away, the better.
And given that virtually no one approves of it anymore, the path to its repeal
just got a whole lot easier.
Climate change, it's not about saving the planet. It's about wealth transfer.
Barack Obama will announce a three billion dollar taxpayer funded US contribution to the world climate change fund.
The pledge is directed to the Green Climate Fund, a financial institution created last year by the United Nations with headquarters in Seoul, South Korea. It comes ahead of a Nov. 20 climate meeting in Berlin, at which countries have been asked to make formal commitments to the fund.
In particular, the world's least developed economies insist that the world's richest economies — which are also the largest greenhouse gas polluters — must commit to paying billions of dollars to help the world's poorest adapt to the ravages of climate change.
By "adapt" they mean, of course, line their pockets with our money.
In Obama's lefty worldview, it's like reparations for colonialism, only better.
And $3 billion is merely the down payment.
At a 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged that by 2020 the United States would help mobilize $100 billion, through a combination of public aid and private investments, to flow annually from rich countries to poor countries to help the poor economies deal with climate change.
$100 billion dollars of our money. Annually. Flowing into the pockets of Third World shithole dictators everwhere! It'll certainly change their, uh, "climate." For the better, I'm sure.
But I guarantee it won't do Thing One to change the weather.
|Previous: Obama's executive amnesty, gateway to Obamacare for illegal aliens|