Federal, state health insurance sites brace for 2015 sign-up deadline

President Obama's healthcare reform push faces the biggest test of its second year in existence Monday, the deadline for customers to choose an insurance plan for 2015. 
Midnight Pacific time is also the deadline for current enrollees to make changes that could reduce premium increases ahead of the new year.
HealthCare.gov and state insurance websites are preparing for heavy online traffic before the deadline, which gives consumers in the East until 3 a.m. Tuesday to enroll.
Wait times at the federal call center started creeping up around the middle of last week, mainly due to a surge of current customers with questions about their coverage for next year. Many will face higher premiums, although they could ease the hit by shopping online for a better deal. Counselors reported hold times of 20 minutes or longer for the telephone help line.
About 6.7 million people now have coverage through Obama's signature law, which offers subsidized private insurance. The administration wants to increase that to 9.1 million in 2015. To do that, the program will have to keep most of its current enrollees while signing up more than 2 million new paying customers.
People no longer can be turned down because of health problems, but picking insurance still is daunting for many consumers. They also have to navigate the process of applying for or updating federal subsidies, which can be complex for certain people, including immigrants. Many returning customers are contending with premium increases generally in the mid-to-high single digits, but much more in some cases.
Consumers "understand it's complicated but they appreciate the ability to get health insurance," said Elizabeth Colvin of Foundation Communities, an Austin, Texas, nonprofit that is helping sign up low-income residents. "People who haven't gone through the process don't understand how complicated it is."
Last year's open enrollment season turned into a race to salvage the reputation of the White House by fixing numerous technical bugs that crippled HealthCare.gov from its first day. With the website now working fairly well, sign-up season this year is a test of whether the program itself is practical for the people it is intended to serve.
New wrinkles have kept popping up, even with seemingly simple features of the Affordable Care Act.
For example, most current customers who do nothing will be automatically renewed Jan. 1 in the plan they now are in. At this point, it looks like that is what a majority intends to do.
While that may sound straightforward, it's not.
By staying in their current plans, people can get locked into a premium increase and miss out on lower-priced plans for 2015.  Not only that, they also will keep their 2014 subsidies, which may be less than what they legally would be entitled to for next year.
Doing nothing appears to be a particularly bad idea for people who turned 21 this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that advocates for low-income people.
Researchers at the center estimate that 21-year-olds will see a 58 percent increase in the sticker price for their premiums just because they're a year older. An age-adjustment factor used to compute premiums jumps substantially when a person turns 21. A 20-year-old whose premium was $130 per month in 2014 will see the premium climb to $205 a month in 2015, solely because of that year's difference.
Tax-credit subsidies can cancel out much or even all of the impact. But if consumers default to automatic renewal, their tax credits will not be updated and they will get the same subsidy as this year.
"Even in the best possible scenario of how many people we can expect to come in, we will still see a substantial number of people defaulting," said Judy Solomon, a health care policy expert at the center. She worries that some young adults may get discouraged and drop out.
Reviews of HealthCare.gov and state health insurance exchanges are mixed.
An Associated Press-GfK poll this month found that 11 percent of Americans said they or someone else in their household tried to sign up since open enrollment began Nov. 15. Overall, 9 percent said the insurance markets are working extremely well or very well. Twenty-six percent said the exchanges are working somewhat well, and 39 percent said they were not working well. The remaining 24 percent said they didn't know enough to rate performance.
So far it has been a frustrating experience for Marie Bagot, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She and her husband are in their 60s, but not yet old enough for Medicare. The husband, who works as a chef, will turn 65 around the middle of next year and qualify for Medicare. Bagot said they were happy with their insurance this year under Obama's law.
"As you get older, you worry about your health," she said. "I was very pleased with the price we got."
But Bagot said she received a notice from her insurer that her current plan will not be available next year in her community. The closest alternative would involve a premium increase of more than $350 a month, even with their tax credit subsidy. After days of trying to find a comparable plan through the federal call center and after visiting a counselor, Bagot said she opted to keep their current coverage, while hoping costs go down after her husband joins Medicare.
"I cannot afford it, but I'm going to try to," she said.
Monday is not the last chance for consumers like Bagot. Open enrollment doesn't end until Feb. 15.

Sydney siege: Police in contact with gunman as five hostages escape

Five people have escaped from a cafe in central Sydney where a gunman had earlier taken several people hostage Monday and forced two people to hold up a black flag bearing an Islamic message written in Arabic in the store's window.
Television footage shot through the cafe's windows showed several people with their arms in the air and hands pressed against the glass, and two people holding up a black flag with the Shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith, written on it. Translated, the statement says, "There is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger." It is considered the first of Islam's five pillars of faith, and is similar to the Lord's Prayer in Christianity. It is pervasive throughout Islamic culture, including the green flag of Saudi Arabia. Jihadis have used the Shahada in their own black flag.
Australian broadcaster Network Ten reported that the unidentified gunman has forced hostages to call him "The Brother" and demanded a flag of the Islamic State terror group in return for the release of a hostage. He has also demanded to speak directly with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. 
The broadcaster reported that the gunman had relayed his demands to them through two hostages. The man also claimed that he had planted two bombs inside the cafe and two others elsewhere in Sydney's central business district. 
Late Monday, Abbott released a pre-recorded statement calling the attack "very disturbing" and "profoundly shocking." His office has not responded to the gunman's demands.
Three men were seen running from a fire exit of the Lindt Chocolat Cafe approximately six hours after the hostage situation began at 9:45 a.m. local time (5:45 p.m. ET Sunday). Shortly after the men escaped, two women, one after another, sprinted from the cafe and into the arms of heavily armed police. Both were wearing aprons with the Lindt chocolate logo, indicating they were cafe employees. One of the men who escaped also appeared to be an employee. It was not immediately clear how the hostages escaped.
Burn said that the first priority was the wellbeing of the people who escaped, after which police would question them to gain more information about the situation inside. She added that police believe that there is only one gunman and had no further information about a possible motive. 
New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner for Specialist Operations Catherine Burn said that police negotiators had made contact with the unidentified gunman. Burn also said that fewer than 30 people were held inside the cafe, though she did not give an exact number. 
"We do not have any information that suggests that anybody is harmed at this stage," she said.
St. Vincent's hospital spokesman David Faktor said a male hostage was in a satisfactory condition in the hospital's emergency department. He was the only one of the freed hostages to be taken to a hospital.
"He's in a satisfactory condition, so he's sitting up and that's all we can give out. We can't talk about the reason for his presentation," Faktor said.
Later Monday, Channel Seven reporter Chris Reason was allowed into the station's newsroom, located on the fourth floor of a building across from the cafe, after being evacuated earlier. He reported seeing around 15 people being rotated into position at the cafe window at variable intervals. Reason described the captives' faces as "pained, strained, eyes red and raw" and took particular notice of one with "head in hands."  He noted that the hostages were "a mix of women, men, young, old -- but no children."
"One woman we've counted was there for at least two hours," Reason reported. "An extraordinary, agonizing time for her surely having to stand on her feet for that long."
Reason described the gunman as unshaven, wearing a white shirt and a black cap, and holding what appeared to be a pump-action shotgun. The gunman could be seen pacing back and forth past the cafe's four windows
"Just two hours ago when we saw that rush of escapees, we could see from up here in this vantage point the gunman got extremely agitated as he realized those five had got out. He started screaming orders at the people, the hostages who remain behind," Reason reported.
The standoff has closed off part of the central business district in Australia's largest city. The cafe is located in Martin Place, a plaza in the heart of the city's financial and shopping district that is packed with holiday shoppers this time of year.
Hundreds of police flooded into the area, streets were closed and offices evacuated. The public was told to stay away from the area, which is home to the state premier's office, the Reserve Bank of Australia, and the headquarters of two of the nation's largest banks. The state parliament house is a few blocks away. The nearby Sydney Opera House was also briefly evacuated after a report of a suspicious package, but has since re-opened. Scheduled performances were canceled Monday.
The U.S. Consulate, located just south of the cafe, was also evacuated and a warning issued urging Americans in Sydney to "maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to enhance your personal security." A White House official told Fox News that President Obama had been briefed on the situation. 
Sky News Australia reported that one of the hostages had contacted a radio broadcaster twice during the siege. Ray Hadley said he had spoken to a "remarkably calm" male hostage and that the hostage taker had demanded the hostage speak live on the radio, a demand Hadley refused. 
"I told the hostage it would not be in his best interest or my best interest to allow that to happen because I'm not a trained negotiator, I don't have any expertise in this, there are people who will talk to both the hostages and the person holding the hostages and they will be knowing what to do," Hadley told 2GB Radio.
Lindt Australia posted a message on its Facebook page thanking the public for its support.
"We are deeply concerned over this serious incident and our thoughts and prayers are with the staff and customers involved and all their friends and families," the company wrote.
The government raised Australia's terror warning level in September in response to the domestic threat posed by supporters of the Islamic State group. Counterterror law enforcement teams later conducted dozens of raids and made several arrests in Australia's three largest cities -- Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. One man arrested during a series of raids in Sydney was charged with conspiring with an Islamic State leader in Syria to behead a random person in downtown Sydney.
The Islamic State group, which now holds a third of Syria and Iraq, has threatened Australia in the past. In September, Islamic State group spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani issued an audio message urging so-called "lone wolf" attacks abroad, specifically mentioning Australia. Al-Adnani told Muslims to kill all "disbelievers," whether they be civilians or soldiers.

Same Old Politics Cartoon

A bully in Harvard Yard: What professor's $4 food fight tells us

If you think bullies are teenagers lurking on schoolyard playgrounds, think again.  At least one is a grown-up walking the hallowed halls of Harvard University.
His name is Ben Edelman.  He not only teaches there, but he earned several diplomas including a law degree at that storied institution of higher education.  But Edelman seems to have adopted the word “higher” as his personal calling card.  You see, he’s higher than you and me. Or at least he seems anxious to let you know it.    
A hardworking Chinese immigrant family found that out when the professor ordered a takeout meal of shredded chicken with spicy garlic sauce and three other dishes.   

The professor has now apologized for his treatment of Duan and his family, but his emails will leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone so supposedly “learned” could be so seemingly insufferable.  

Edelman thought he was overcharged by $ 4 bucks ($ 1 dollar more for each dish), so he launched a relentless war on Ran Duan, who works with his parents at their restaurant, Sichuan Garden in Brookline.  You can read the sordid details in a story at Boston.com where the website also published the unbelievable litany of Edelman’s intimidating and condescending emails to Duan.  The prof’s remarks ooze with arrogance and conceit.  
Edelman’s exchange with Duan has become a viral sensation, as it should.  A Harvard professor vowing legal action over the sum of $ 4 dollars.  Come on.  
The professor has now apologized for his treatment of Duan and his family, but his emails will leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone so supposedly “learned” could be so seemingly insufferable.  Maybe that’s what a Harvard education gets you these days –a degree in imperiousness.  
Arrogance aside, the professor’s persistent threats of legal action constitute a shameful campaign of bullying.  He uses his knowledge of the law --at least his tortured interpretation of it-- for a purpose that can only be described as abusive.  It turns out, he has done this before to a different restaurant.
Bullies tend to target the weak and vulnerable.  For Edelman to use his advantage as a lawyer to berate the Duan family who have come from nothing as immigrants and are trying their best to make a living running a restaurant is, in a word, unconscionable.  During one email exchange, Duan asked the professor, “you seem like a smart man…don’t you have better things to do?”  Bullies usually don’t.
For all I know, Edelman is a pretty good professor.  That does not make him a good person.  Clinical psychiatrists might find him to be an interesting case study in how living in the Harvard bubble can distort even the most agile of minds.  Sometimes intellectuals take themselves too seriously.  Sequestered from the experiences of the average man, they can lack common sense, kindness and decency.  Edelman seems bereft of them all.
There is a reason why places like Harvard are called “ivory towers”.  All too often, they envelop an artificial atmosphere where intellectuals are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life.  So, it should be no surprise when guys like Ben Edelman explode like a bomb on some poor immigrant family trying to make a buck with the sweat of their brow.  Fortunately, academic elitism is not contagious.  
Teaching at Harvard may be a lofty achievement in the egg-head world.  But professor Edelman seems to lack the one quality which elevates people above all other primates: compassion.  He might gain a measure of humility and understanding by getting a real job.  Might I suggest washing dishes in a Chinese restaurant?
The next time I visit the Boston area, I’ll skip Harvard Yard.  Instead, I plan to drop by the Sichuan Garden to try their sautéed prawns with roasted chili and peanut sauce.  
And I won’t check the bill. 

                                                                                                                     Ben Edelma

British soldiers told not to shout at, insult terror suspects, report claims

British soldiers have been told not to shout in terror suspects' ears, use "insulting words", or bang their fists on tables or walls during interrogations, according to a published report. 
Britain's Sunday Telegraph obtained court papers outlining regulations for military intelligence officers, and current and former commanders have warned that the guidelines are so strict as to make interrogation pointless. 
"The effect of the ambulance-chasing lawyers and the play-it-safe judges is that we have got to the point where we have lost our operational capability to do tactical questioning. That in itself brings risks to the lives of the people we deploy," Tim Collins, a retired British Army colonel who now runs a private security company, told the Telegraph. "These insurgents are not nice people. These are criminals. They behead people; they keep sex slaves. They are not normal people."
There is also concern, in the wake of this week's release of a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documenting alleged torture of terror suspects by the CIA following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, that soldiers will risk exposure to disciplinary action and legal claims. 
"While these insurgents are chopping people’s heads off and raping women, the idea they can take us to court because somebody shouted at them is ridiculous," Sir Alan West, former Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism told the paper. 
The Telegraph reported that the new interrogation rules, known as the "Challenge Direct" interrogation technique, were introduced in 2012, and were laid out in a ruling by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal over the summer. The court's ruling upheld the technique after a challenge by lawyers for Haidar Ali Hussein, an Iraqi civilian arrested in 2004 who alleged that he had been subjected "to substantial periods of shouting" while detained and claimed damages from the Ministry of Defence over alleged mistreatment. 
Despite the ruling in favor of "Challenge Direct", the Telegraph reported that the three Court of Appeal judges identified several breaches while viewing videotaped interrogations of prisoners in Afghanistan. Among them were a questioner who "held the hand of the captured person ... a breach of the prohibition on physical contact" and another interrogator who suddenly moved forward from a crouching position so that his face was right in front of the captured person's." The judges described this maneuver as "physically intimidating."
The Challenge Direct technique was implemented amid public outcry over the 2003 death of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi who was fatally beaten while in British military custody. A 2011 inquiry report found that Mousa had suffered lengthy and repeated beatings by British soldiers.

NYC police union wants de Blasio banned from funerals

Another Al Sharpton who keeps racism alive?

New York City's rank-and-file police union is urging cops to tell Mayor Bill de Blasio not to attend their funerals in the event that they are killed in the line of duty.
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association posted a link on its website telling members not to let de Blasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito "insult their sacrifice" should they be killed. The union posted a “Don’t Insult My Sacrifice” waiver officers can sign requesting the two politicians not attend their funerals due to their "consistent refusal to show police officers the support and respect they deserve."
The waiver says that attendance of the two elected officials “at the funeral of a fallen New York City police officer is an insult to that officer’s memory and sacrifice.”
The New York Post reports the mayor and council speaker are calling the effort "deeply disappointing."
"Incendiary rhetoric like this serves only to divide the city, and New Yorkers reject these tactics," they said in a joint statement.
Sources told the Post the union is angry that the mayor did not show more support for the NYPD after a grand jury decided not to indict the officer involved in the death of Staten Islander Eric Garner.
In a press conference about the grand jury’s decision not to charge the officer, de Blasio announced that he had warned his 17-year-old, mixed-race son, Dante, to be careful around police officers, which caused PBA President Patrick Lynch to claim de Blasio had thrown NYPD officers “under the bus.”

Senate passes $1.1 trillion spending bill, averting partial gov't shutdown

The Senate passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill late Saturday that funds the government through next September, averting a partial government shutdown and sending the measure to President Obama's desk.
The Senate voted 56-40 for the long-term funding bill, the main item left on Congress' year-end agenda. The measure provides money for nearly the entire government through the end of the current budget year Sept. 30. The sole exception is the Department of Homeland Security, which is funded only until Feb. 27.
Hours earlier, the Senate had approved a short-term bill funding the federal government through Wednesday night, easing concerns of a potential partial government shutdown. The stopgap bill, which passed by a voice vote, bought lawmakers more time to comb through the separate $1.1 trillion long-term funding bill. 
The votes capped a day of intrigue in the upper chamber of Congress that included a failed, largely symbolic Republican challenge to the Obama administration's new immigration policy, while Democrats launched a drive to confirm two dozen of Obama's stalled nominees to the federal bench and administration posts before their majority expires at year's end.
Several Republicans blamed tea party-backed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for giving the outgoing majority party an opportunity to seek approval for presidential appointees, including some that are long-stalled.
"I've seen this movie before, and I wouldn't pay money to see it again," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., recalling Cruz' leading role a year ago in events precipitating a 16-day partial government shutdown that briefly sent GOP poll ratings plummeting.
Asked if Cruz had created an opening for the Democrats, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said, "I wish you hadn't pointed that out," adding "You should have an end goal in sight if you're going to do these types of things and I don't see an end goal other than irritating a lot of people."
It was Cruz who pushed the Senate to cast its first vote on the administration's policy of suspending the threat of deportation for an estimated four million immigrants living in the country illegally. He lost his attempt Saturday night, 74-22, with 23 of the 45 GOP senators voting down the Texan's point of order.
"If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote yes. If you believe President Obama's amnesty is consistent with the Constitution, vote no," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rebutted instantly, saying Cruz was "wrong, wrong, wrong on several counts," and even Republicans who oppose Obama's policy abandoned the Texan.
The spending bill, which cleared the House on Thursday, was the main item left on Congress' year-end agenda, and exposed fissures within both political parties in both houses. The controversial package was opposed by conservative Republicans such as Cruz for not challenging Obama's immigration measures, as well as by leading liberals such as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. who have criticized the bill for repealing banking regulation.
Despite the opposition from liberals, the package won a personal endorsement from Obama and was brought before the Senate. The legislation locks in spending levels negotiated in recent years between Republicans and Democrats, and includes a number of provisions that reflect the priorities of one party or the other, from the environment to abortion to the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.
Despite protests from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, more than 70 House Democrats supported the measure, and Obama made clear that he didn't view the provision as a deal-killer.  Obama acknowledged that the measure has "a bunch of provisions in this bill that I really do not like," and said the bill flows from "the divided government that the American people voted for."
Obama has sided with old-school pragmatists in his party like Reid, but split from liberals such as Pelosi and Warren. Warren blasted the measure in a Senate speech for the third straight day, saying it was a payoff to Citigroup, whose lobbyists helped write a provision that significantly weakens new regulations on derivatives trading by Wall Street banks.
"Enough is enough. Washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists," Warren said. "But what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citi bet big on derivatives and lost?"
Another provision loathed by many Democrats -- though backed by the Democratic National Committee -- raises the amount of money that wealthy donors may contribute to political parties for national conventions, election recounts and headquarters buildings.
Democrats will lose control of the Senate in January because of heavy losses in midterm elections last month and will go deeper into a House minority than at any time in nearly 70 years.

Santa Obama Cartoon

Issa follows up Gruber grilling with subpoenas

Your Obamacare Money at Work!

The powerful lawmaker who put loose-lipped ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber on the hot seat earlier this week isn’t quite finished with the MIT economist.
Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform, has issued a subpoena demanding all of Gruber’s documents and communications with federal, state, or local government employees regarding his work on the controversial health care law.
“As one of the architects of ObamaCare, Jonathan Gruber is in a unique position to shed light on the ‘lack of transparency’ surrounding the passage of the President’s health care law, however he has so far been unwilling to fully comply with the Oversight Committee’s repeated requests,” Chairman Issa said in a statement. “This week, Dr. Gruber repeatedly refused to answer several key questions, including the amount of taxpayer funds he received for his work on ObamaCare. The American people deserve not just an apology, but a full accounting, which Dr. Gruber must provide.”
Gruber, who was captured on several recently-surfaced videos alluding to the “stupidity” of the American voter and acknowledging that the Affordable Care Act was intentionally written in a dense fashion because it would never pass if people understood it, was called before the committee on Tuesday. He sought to apologize for his remarks, but GOP lawmakers accused him of evasion and of  creating a false model as part of "a pattern of intentional misleading" to get ObamaCare passed.
 “You made a series of troubling statements that were not only an insult to the American people, but revealed a pattern of intentional misleading [of] the public about the true impact and nature of ObamaCare," Issa said on Tuesday.
Gruber has made several million dollars from state and federal governments as a consultant on the plan, although he disputes the “ObamaCare architect” label.
"I sincerely apologize for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion," Gruber said. "I knew better. I know better. I'm embarrassed and I'm sorry."
But when asked how much money he had been paid for his work, Gruber referred lawmakers to his attorney.
The subpoena seeks all documents and communications referring or relating to funding — for research or otherwise — from any federal, state, or local government agency, including any contracts with federal, state, or local government agencies.  It also seeks work products that Gruber created, as well as  communications with government officials related to the ACA, and federal and state exchanges.

Fool of the Week: Sandra Fluke

Sometimes the Fool of the Week is tough to call.  I have to consider the  nominee, consider the comments, consider the context and then judge the comment fairly. 
Other times.. the "Fool" just falls into my lap.
This week that happened. Just moments after the CIA interrogation report was released.
Sandra Fluke...tweeted this:
Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke
Horrified by #TortureReport & by how it mirrors domestic challenges of #sexualassault & violence against men of color by authority figures.
Yep. Sandra Fluke just compared  Eric Garner and sexual assault victims. Wait for it... to terrorists..
In other words, Sandra Fluke. You take a terrorist report and make it about racism & rape?
America was lucky you lost that congressional race in California.
For that asinine tweet.. Sandra Fluke, you are the “Fool of the Week.”

  

By Eric Bolling at Fox.

House buys Senate some time on budget bill; approves second stopgap measure

WASHINGTON –  The U.S. House passed a second stopgap measure Friday afternoon, buying the Senate additional time to discuss and vote on a $1.1 trillion government-wide spending bill. 
The House vote provides a pad to make certain the government doesn’t shut down at midnight Saturday when current funding authority runs out.
It’s still unknown whether the House measure, passed by a voice vote while the chamber was virtually empty, will be needed. Senate leaders say they hope to wrap up action on the omnibus budget bill by Friday night but say that goal is looking less attainable.
Washington woke up to “Fallout Friday,” with liberal Democrats openly outraged at President Obama and conservative Republicans disgusted with House Speaker John Boehner after both did enough wheeling, dealing and arm twisting to push through a spending bill three hours shy of the midnight deadline.
The surprise beneficiary in this latest political conundrum could be Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a relative newcomer to the Senate but looking more and more like the liberal Democratic answer to who might challenge Hillary Clinton for the party's 2016 presidential nomination.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Friday morning that he hopes to take up and finish the omnibus bill as soon as possible but said getting it done would require cooperation from both sides of the aisle. Reid, speaking from the Senate floor, acknowledged there were some provisions he was not happy with but pitched it as a compromise nonetheless.
“We’re going to consider this legislation to keep our government open and funded and we’re going to do it today – I hope,” he said. He later warned, “There isn’t much time… government funding runs out on Saturday at midnight.”
The House narrowly approved a sweeping spending bill Thursday night despite deep misgivings among liberals and conservatives alike, sending the measure to the Senate as lawmakers averted a partial government shutdown.
The bill passed on a 219-206 vote, following an intense lobbying effort by House Republican leaders and the White House.
Current government funding technically runs out at midnight Thursday, but lawmakers late Thursday approved a stopgap measure to keep the government running through midnight Saturday as the Senate considers the main $1.1 trillion spending package. That debate could last through the weekend and potentially into Monday.
"We will not have a government shutdown," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., pledged.
Passage in the House followed hours of urgent appeals from an unlikely alliance: President Obama and House GOP leadership.
Obama and Vice President Biden worked the phones to sway Democratic lawmakers. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also met on the Hill with the Democratic caucus. Despite sources inside the meeting initially saying he did little to persuade lawmakers, a rift emerged in the Democratic leadership late Thursday. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to oppose the bill, her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged passage.
Meanwhile, House GOP leaders did what they could to sway conservative members who, for different reasons, were opposed to the package.
In the end, 67 Republicans defected, but 57 Democrats voted for it.
Many conservatives opposed the bill because it does not address Obama's executive actions on illegal immigration, while liberal Democrats were angry over provisions dealing with campaign spending and financial regulation.
The debate saw Pelosi flexing her clout, recognizing that House Speaker John Boehner needed Democrats to pass the bill.
She pushed back not only against GOP leaders but Obama's lobbying effort.
In a rare public rebuke of the president, Pelosi said she was "enormously disappointed" he had decided to embrace the bill, which she described as an attempt at legislative blackmail by House Republicans.
Pelosi, D-Calif., sent an email note to colleagues in the afternoon saying they had "leverage" to make demands -- namely, to remove two provisions her party doesn't like. They are: a provision rolling back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, and one that permits wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.
Right before the vote, according to a source in the room, Pelosi told lawmakers: “We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”
But perhaps an overriding desire on both sides not to risk another government shutdown prevailed.
The current plan would fund the government through September 2015, but immigration services only through late February, teeing up a battle over immigration for early 2015.
Earlier in the day, the bill narrowly cleared an important procedural hurdle, on a 214-212 test vote. But the tight vote, which almost failed, exposed serious problems. GOP leaders then delayed a final vote and spent hours trying to round up support, as the White House did the same with Democrats.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier that Obama supports the bill and would sign it -- despite having reservations about certain provisions.
Hoyer ultimately took a similar position.
The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.
Warren, now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days.

Word Origin and History for omnibus

n.

1829, "four-wheeled public vehicle with seats for passengers," from French (voiture) omnibus "(carriage) for all, common (conveyance)," from Latin omnibus "for all," dative plural of omnis "all" (see omni -). Introduced by Jacques Lafitte in Paris in 1819 or '20, in London from 1829. In reference to legislation, the word is recorded from 1842. Meaning "man or boy who assists a waiter at a restaurant" is attested from 1888 (cf. busboy ). As an adjective in English from 1842.

Sony execs Obama emails: White liberal hypocrisy revealed in all its glory

White liberal hypocrisy on race is so delightful for conservatives.
White conservatives are always on defense against charges of hating President Obama because he is black; suppressing minority voters and indifference to the difficulty minorities have living everyday with the legacy of slavery and a culture filled with stereotypes of black inferiority.
This week white conservatives can take a break, step out of the dock and make way for white liberals.

I know from personal experience at National Public Radio that white liberals can be very intolerant if they suspect they are dealing with a black person who is not afraid from depart from liberal orthodoxy.

Hacked emails from Hollywood’s white, liberal elite show them belittling the president by assuming his taste in movies is confined to racial stereotypes fitting just another black guy.
“Should I ask him if he likes’ DJANGO?’” asked Amy Pascal, a Sony Pictures’ co-chair. Scott Rudin, a movie producer, responds: “Or ‘The Butler’… or ‘Ride-Along. ‘ I bet he likes Kevin Hart.”
Where to begin unpacking that powder keg of race and class bigotry?
Pascal is one of Hollywood’s most powerful people and certainly at the top of the movie industry’s list of most influential women. She must have a penetrating intellect and tremendous business savvy.
So how is it possible for her to think that a 53-year-old, Harvard trained constitutional lawyer who is now president of the United States, is to be solely defined by his race?
She assumes that he is sure to share the working-class, juvenile delight of Hart’s racial slapstick. And it does not make much sense in her racial construct but she also thinks the president must also be interested in movies about the weighty topics of slavery and the civil rights movement.
Pascal and Rudin, on their way to meet the president at a Democratic fundraiser, have no hesitation about painting Obama into this limited, one-dimensional personality. What they have revealed is how demeaning and patronizing their liberal minds can be even when the man is the leader of the nation.
Chris Rock, the comedian and actor, recently said Hollywood is a “white industry… it just is.” He added they don’t hire black men.
I imagine they do hire some black people. But those black people have to color inside the lines of what white liberals think is the right kind of black person. Black conservatives have no chance in that world.
Black intellectuals and even black left wingers have no chance either. But that is a different story. In the restrictive confines of the white liberal world they would be seen as threatening black people.
Pascal and Rudin have both apologized for the content of their private emails.  “The content of my e-mails to Scott were insensitive and inappropriate but are not an accurate reflection of who I am. Although this was a private communication that was stolen, I accept full responsibility for what I wrote and apologize to everyone who was offended.”
Rudin gave a statement to Deadline.com, explaining that his emails were "written in haste and without much thought or sensitivity," he understood the notes were out of line. "I made a series of remarks that were meant only to be funny, but in the cold light of day, they are in fact thoughtless and insensitive," he said.
I know from personal experience at National Public Radio that white liberals can be very intolerant if they suspect they are dealing with a black person who is not afraid from depart from liberal orthodoxy. In my case I was fired and afterwards described as a bigot in need of a psychiatric care.
In Pascal’s moment of crisis she is, even today, sticking to the game of racial boxes by taking calls from Al Sharpton as if he is the president of black America. Sharpton will no doubt end up with a contract in exchange for not staging phony demonstrations or challenging Sony on their lack of honesty about race.
Malcolm X, during his Nation of Islam radicalism, once said white conservatives are not friends to black people but “at least don’t try to hide it.” The separatist minded Malcolm X had even harsher words for white liberals. He judged them to be “more hypocritical than the conservative.” He accused white liberals of “perfecting the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor” while using black people as a “pawn or tool” in their political fight with white conservatives.
One word of caution is due as conservatives enjoy this moment of white liberal hypocrisy.
These emails were obtained as the result of a malicious act of cyber-criminality. The conversation was a private exchange and protected under all laws governing private communications.
The paltry benefit of skewering Sony executives should not obscure the danger of criminals gaining access to every e-mail you and I have sent or received and then posting it in the public domain for the entire nation to read. Confidential health information on Sony employees was also disclosed. Would you want all of your private, unfiltered communications with friends, family and co-workers plastered all over the web for people to make judgments about you?
So while the contents of the emails are a dazzling display of white liberal hypocrisy it should not distract anyone from the need for the nation to condemn this intrusion as criminal, unacceptable behavior and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Congress needs to move cyber-security to the top of their agenda next year.
But for the moment, let’s take a long look at white liberals revealing themselves so nakedly,  condescending to even the president of the United States because he’s black.

Palestinian throws acid at Jewish family, then shot and arrested by police

A Palestinian posing as a hitchhiker threw acid at an Israeli family in the West Bank Friday, before he was shot by a passer-by and arrested, the Israeli military said.
The Israeli family -- a Jewish man, his wife and three young girls -- were sitting inside a car when the Palestinian hurled acid at the woman and the girls at a checkpoint south of Jerusalem, the military said.
The army said the Palestinian also tried to attack the father of the family with a screwdriver and then started to run away, but a civilian passer-by shot him in the leg. Israeli police arrested him and evacuated him to hospital for treatment.
The Israeli man had stopped to pick up the Palestinian as a hitchhiker when the attack occurred, authorities said. An Israeli civilian hit the attacker with his car and then shot him, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday. The suspect is in moderate condition, according to emergency services.
The Israeli family members sustained light injuries, the police said.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. The incident occurred as tens of thousands marched in the Gaza Strip in celebration of the 27th anniversary of the founding of the Islamist Hamas group.
About 600 Palestinians clashed with Israeli forces in Hebron Friday. Israel Defense Forces soldiers were using crowd-dispersal methods to break up the demonstrations.
Friday’s attacker was identified as Jamal Abd al-Majid Ghayatha, 45, Haaretz reported, citing Ma'an News Agency. Ghayatha was imprisoned in Israel from 2004-2007 for activities related to Islamic Jihad, army sources said.  Israeli army forces raided his home in Nahalin.
Tension has been mounting between Israelis and Palestinians, especially in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in recent months since a five-week war between Israel and Hamas ended in August. More than 2,100 Palestinians-- most of them civilians-- died in the conflict, Palestinian officials said. More than 70 Israelis died in the fighting, most of them soldiers. 
In the past month, 11 people have been killed in Palestinian attacks, mostly in Jerusalem, but also in Tel Aviv and the West Bank. Ten Israelis and a foreign visitor were killed by Palestinians in knife or car-based attacks in the last four months, Reuters reported.  At least a dozen Palestinians have also been killed in the violence.
Magen David Adom paramedics treated the Israeli victims of Friday's acid attack, who included a 27-year-old man, another man in his 50s, a 52-year-old woman and three girls, aged 11, 12 and 18. The victims in the car reported feeling a burning sensation on their skin and in their eyes as well as shortness of breath.
Acid attacks are rare in Israel and the Palestinian territories. In 2001, a Palestinian girl seriously injured a young Israeli woman when she entered a Jerusalem shoe shop and threw acid at a saleswoman.
Earlier Friday, a Palestinian rammed his car into a bus stop where Israeli soldiers were waiting in the West Bank. The troops were not hurt, the military said. The driver was lightly hurt and taken in for questioning to determine whether it was an accident or an intentional assault.
Palestinians have used vehicles as weapons to carry out attacks in several instances in recent months, resulting in deaths and injuries.

A politically correct Christmas song by Scary Pete

Gretchen Wilson & Merle Haggard - Politically Uncorrect

I Want My Country Back ( Country artist Jason Green )

Security or Values Cartoon

'I would kill you': ISIS captive held by Kurds admits taking 70 lives

Kurds in northern Iraq are holding hundreds of ISIS fighters prisoner, including one who told FoxNews.com in an exclusive interview that he killed as many as 70 people in the service of the radical jihadist army.
“Omar, “ a 25-year-old former Islamic State fighter from the Iraqi village of Dor sal-hadeen, said he killed scores of his countrymen and foreign contractors after joining “Daesh,” as ISIS is known in the region, in June. He said he fled the terrorist army in October, but was quickly captured by Kurdish security forces.
“They came to our area and forced me to protect their lands,” Omar said of his Islamic State commanders. “After a while they told me, ‘When are you going to start protecting your own land?’
“They told me to do it or die, and then they killed people in front of me,” said Omar, who is missing four fingers on his left hand from what he said was a 2009 industrial accident. The disability nearly got him killed by his ISIS handlers, he said, until he proved he could shoot right-handed.
Omar is currently being held in an undisclosed prison in Sulymaniyah, after being convicted of terrorism. He was initially sentenced to death, but a judge commuted the sentence to life in prison.

Face to face with ISIS

FoxNews.com's Hollie McKay last month traveled to Kurdish-administered territory in Iraq's Sulymaniyah province, where she met face-to-face with two imprisoned ex-Islamic State soldiers. The interviews were conducted over the course of several hours, and took place in an office at Sulymaniyah’s “Asaih,” or security facility, in the presence of a Kurdish colonel and an independent Kurdish translator. No questions were off-limits for the prisoners, who appeared in civilian clothes, and were not handcuffed or shackled. Asaish officials provided mug shots of the men, but as a condition of the interview insisted FoxNews.com not use their full names.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sipping the tea provided by his Kurdish captors during the FoxNews.com interview, Omar insisted he was an ISIS victim – and even pledged to join the fight against them.
But victim or not, Omar said he became a prolific killer for ISIS, by his count racking up 70 executions in a matter of months. He claimed he killed his victims with rifle shots, and was chillingly candid about why he did it.
“Because they were saying bad words about A'isha [one of Mohammad’s wives, known as the “mother of believers”] and burning a mosque,” he said, adding that he did not receive any type of reward from ISIS leaders for the large number he killed.
Asked if he felt remorse, Omar replied said he “did not act on my own will.” That claim drew a sharp rebuke from the commander of the facility's department of investigation, prompting Omar to say he deflected blame because he was uncomfortable around women.
Omar and other hundreds of other former ISIS soldiers and deserters are being interrogated for intelligence that may help the Kurdish Peshmerga army in its fight against the jihadist group. Kurdish officials say the men are being held under conditions in adherence to international law and monitored by the Red Cross.
Evidence against individual former combatants is gathered and presented to a Kurdish judge, who decides whether prisoners are held or released, according to the Kurdish commander who sat in the interview, and did not allow his name to be used. Omar and many other ex-ISIS fighters convicted of mass murder or terrorism charges may well spend the rest of their lives in prison. Other ex-ISIS fighters judged to be non-terrorists will serve lesser sentences, or will be released among the general population. 
At another point in the interview, Omar said he joined ISIS to get away from his new bride. Saying she had “something in her head – she looked normal on the outside, but she wasn’t,” Omar added that his wife “couldn’t have babies.” He then acknowledged, with a shrug, that by fleeing to join the murderous jihadi army he left his family responsible for paying his wife’s family a fortune.

“I would call you to Islam and if you did not come I would kill you.”- "Omar," ISIS fighter held by Kurds

Omar said he deserted ISIS and fled to Kurdistan in an attempt to blend in and find work, but was arrested by police on Oct. 8, after being identified by Kurdish intelligence agents.
Although he said at times that he wished to take up arms with the Iraqi military or the Kurds, there were several instances in which Omar used the pronoun for “we” when discussing Daesh, a possible giveaway of his true sentiments toward non-believers in general, and Americans in particular.
“We count Americans like Jews,” he said at one point in the interview. He had similarly hostile views of Western women.
Asked what he would do if he saw his female interviewer on the street, he replied, “I would call you to Islam and if you didn’t, I would leave you alone.” Pressed, he corrected himself. “I would call you to Islam and if you did not come, I would kill you.”
Omar was one of two former Islamic State fighters who spoke to FoxNews.com at the Asaish facility, where terrorists are held with local criminals. The other, a 19-year-old Kurd identified as "Dawen," said he was lured to join by the group’s Facebook pages, which urged Muslims to come fight in Syria.
Dawen said he spent just 20 days in the world’s most infamous terrorist army before being arrested two months ago. He said he did not witness any killings, but had no illusions about Islamic State’s barbarity.
“I realized that this is not about God, especially after I was captured,” he said. “I realize this isn’t about God; it is about harming people. Also, the Kurdish people were nice even with my situation.”
Dawen said he felt regret about joining the group almost immediately. “I called my family and they were not happy, it was shameful… I felt weak because they made me act and think a certain way,” he said, when asked whether joining a terrorist organization made him feel powerful. “I was asking for forgiveness, even while there.”
Dawen, who faces terrorism charges, also insisted he is learning more from fellow inmates about other barbarities committed by ISIS, and suggested Kurdish officials “make anti-terror shows and programs” to teach others that this is “not the way to be.”
The facility's director of security said most ISIS fighters are uneducated, and easily led down the bloody path of violent jihad.
“Some regret their actions, some do not,” he said. “Understand that most are young and have no information. They are impressionable. They listen to the second-life paradise story, 72 virgins, rivers of wine, and [staying] young forever. That is all they know.”
Unlike prisoners of ISIS, many of whom have been marched into the desert and executed, or garbed in orange jumpsuits and forced to kneel before being beheaded, deserters and captives from the terrorist army say they are treated well by Kurdish authorities. The two men interviewed by FoxNews.com were dressed comfortably, clean-shaven, appeared well-nourished and showed no signs of physical injury or abuse.

Related Image

Hundreds of ISIS fighters captured in battle or after deserting are held in prisons in the Kurdish stronghold of Sulaymaniyah. (Wikipedia)

Both men confirmed they are allowed phone contact with family members, and seemed aware of recent news events involving ISIS. Both said they feared being captured by ISIS if released.
Security officers, however, cautioned against believing the prisoners’ expressions of remorse. Both men told FoxNews.com they wanted to join the Peshmerga, the Kurdish army that has won back much of the Iraqi and Syrian land seized by ISIS. But Kurdish officials said neither man could be trusted, noting ISIS has been known to send spies into Kurdistan.
Kurdish officials privately predicted there was little doubt the two men, and others like them, would be back fighting for ISIS within days if they were ever freed.
Referring to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s repeated and destructive campaigns against the Kurds, the official noted they have extensive experience handling such threats.
“We have been dealing with terrorist groups since the beginning, so this is not new for us. We specialize in terrorists.”

Fox News Poll: Voters agree with Brown grand jury, disagree with Garner

Two grand juries recently declined to charge white police officers in connection with the deaths of unarmed black men.  Americans think one was right and the other wrong. 
That’s according to the latest Fox News poll. 
Click here for the poll results.
Commentators and others have understandably linked the decisions coming in quick succession out of Ferguson, Missouri and New York City.  Yet voters apparently see key distinctions between the two cases. 
By a 22-point margin, they agree with the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer in the shooting death of a black teenage robbery suspect (55 percent agree vs. 33 percent disagree).
The reverse is true for the grand jury decision in New York: by 30 points, most disagree with the decision not to seek criminal charges against a white officer in the chokehold death of a black man stopped for selling loose cigarettes (27 percent agree vs. 57 percent disagree).
Large majorities of black voters disagree with the decisions in Ferguson (83 percent) and New York (90 percent).  For white voters, a majority agrees with the decision in Ferguson (65 percent), while just over half disagree with the outcome in New York (51 percent). 
Democrats disagree with both the Ferguson (59 percent) and New York (74 percent) decisions.  Republicans think the grand jury made the right decision in Ferguson (77 percent).  On the decision in New York, Republicans have mixed views: 40 percent agree, 37 percent disagree and 23 percent are unsure. 
These grand jury decisions have provoked protests in cities nationwide that are continuing days after the decisions were announced.  Nearly 4 in 10 think news coverage of the protests has been “about right” (39 percent). 
Others think the news favors one side: by a 25-point margin, voters are more likely to say the coverage has been too supportive of the protestors (37 percent) than to say it’s been too supportive of the police (12 percent).
Some say the refusal of large segments of society to believe a jury’s findings in such cases is a solvable problem -- police should wear body cameras. It’s a proposal pretty much everyone can get behind:  85 percent like the idea of police being required to wear them. That includes most blacks (90 percent), whites (84 percent) and Hispanics (85 percent).
There is also agreement across party lines, as large numbers of both Democrats (89 percent) and Republicans (79 percent) favor body cameras for police.
Meanwhile, voters are nearly three times as likely to say race relations have gotten worse (62 percent) rather than better (19 percent) since Barack Obama became president.  Another 17 percent say things are the same. 
Majorities of white (65 percent), black (55 percent) and Hispanic voters (56 percent) say race relations have gotten worse under Obama. 
Overall, Obama receives a 41 percent approval rating for the job he’s doing on race relations, while 51 percent of voters disapprove.  Despite the negative rating, that makes this one of his best issues. 
Sixty-five percent of black voters approve of Obama’s performance on race relations, down from 82 percent approval in 2010.  Twenty-four percent disapprove.
Among white voters, 37 percent approve and 56 percent disapprove.
These numbers help explain why, overall, just 19 percent of voters think Obama should get more involved personally in cases like Ferguson, while nearly half -- 48 percent -- say he should be less involved.  Nearly a third feels Obama’s actions in the recent cases have been “about right” (31 percent).
Black voters (35 percent) are more than twice as likely as white voters (15 percent) to say Obama should get more involved personally. 
The issue of race relations comes in at the bottom of things voters want Obama to work on right now: 38 percent say working on the economy should be his top priority, while 21 percent say terrorist groups like ISIS. Another 12 percent say health care, 10 percent immigration and 9 percent race relations. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Conservative group sues California AG over donor list demands, 'bullying'

Americans for Prosperity, a prominent conservative group, is suing the California attorney general for allegedly demanding donor information and threatening harsh penalties if they don't comply. 
The lawsuit, which claims that complying with Attorney General Kamala Harris' demands would put donors' safety "at risk," comes on the heels of the 2013 controversy over IRS targeting of conservative groups. 
According to the Courthouse News Service, the nonprofit group is seeking a federal court order that would bar Harris from demanding the names of its donors. Harris, according to the report, had told the group if it did not hand over the donor lists from 2011 and 2012, Americans for Prosperity would be slapped with fines and barred from operating in California.
Harris’ office has not yet been served with the lawsuit and so far is not commenting, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Americans for Prosperity, founded by the Koch brothers and based in Virginia, acknowledged in court documents that its views are not “universally popular” -- the group said it feared for the safety of donors, citing past harassment and hackers. They said Harris' demands violate the First and 14th amendments and the Supremacy Clause.
"Faced with such bullying, current and potential donors are understandably afraid that having their identities disclosed will put them and their families at risk," the court complaint states. "Dozens of potential donors, a number of whom live in California, have reluctantly refused to contribute to the foundation because they are too fearful of the reprisal they will face if their contribution becomes public knowledge, and current donors have indicated that they will cease their contributions if their names and addresses are revealed to the state of California."
The case follows the 2013 scandal in which the IRS applied extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking nonprofit status. 
Americans for Prosperity is federally registered as a 501(c)(4), which means it can engage in political campaigns and elections as long as it is not for a specific candidate. They are not required under federal rules to release donor lists. The group has a separate registration in California, which they say has been put at risk if they do not comply with Harris’ demands.
Another conservative group, the Center for Competitive Politics, a 501(c)(3), also sued Harris in March, contending that its First Amendment rights were violated by her demands for their donor lists. They lost their request for an injunction in federal court and are appealing the court’s decision to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

House narrowly approves spending bill, legislation heads to Senate

The House narrowly approved a sweeping spending bill Thursday night despite deep misgivings among liberals and conservatives alike, sending the measure to the Senate as lawmakers averted a partial government shutdown.
The bill passed on a 219-206 vote, following an intense lobbying effort by House Republican leaders and the White House.
Current government funding technically runs out at midnight Thursday, but lawmakers late Thursday approved a stopgap measure to keep the government running through midnight Saturday as the Senate considers the main $1.1 trillion spending package. That debate could last through the weekend and potentially into Monday.
"We will not have a government shutdown," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., pledged.
Passage in the House followed hours of urgent appeals from an unlikely alliance: President Obama and House GOP leadership.
Obama and Vice President Biden worked the phones to sway Democratic lawmakers. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also met on the Hill with the Democratic caucus. Despite sources inside the meeting initially saying he did little to persuade lawmakers, a rift emerged in the Democratic leadership late Thursday. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to oppose the bill, her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged passage.
Meanwhile, House GOP leaders did what they could to sway conservative members who, for different reasons, were opposed to the package.
In the end, 67 Republicans defected, but 57 Democrats voted for it.
Many conservatives opposed the bill because it does not attack Obama's immigration executive actions, while liberal Democrats were angry over provisions dealing with campaign spending and financial regulation.
The debate saw Pelosi flexing her clout, recognizing that House Speaker John Boehner needed Democrats to pass the bill.
She pushed back not only against GOP leaders but Obama's lobbying effort.
In a rare public rebuke of the president,  Pelosi said she was "enormously disappointed" he had decided to embrace the bill, which she described as an attempt at legislative blackmail by House Republicans.
Pelosi, D-Calif., sent an email note to colleagues in the afternoon saying they had "leverage" to make demands -- namely, to remove two provisions her party doesn't like. They are: a provision rolling back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, and one that permits wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.
Right before the vote, according to a source in the room, Pelosi told lawmakers: “We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”
But perhaps an overriding desire on both sides not to risk another government shutdown prevailed.
The current plan would fund the government through September 2015, but immigration services only through late February, teeing up a battle over immigration for early 2015.
Earlier in the day, the bill narrowly cleared an important procedural hurdle, on a 214-212 test vote. But the tight vote, which almost failed, exposed serious problems. GOP leaders then delayed a final vote and spent hours trying to round up support, as the White House did the same with Democrats.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier that Obama supports the bill and would sign it -- despite having reservations about certain provisions.Hoyer ultimately took a similar position.
The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days.

Stupid and Stupider Cartoon.

Georgetown basketball players sport 'I Can't Breathe' shirts in warm-ups

Stupid.

The first major "I Can't Breathe" protest from college sports would naturally come from Georgetown, where societal statements are part of the school's DNA.
And what a powerful one it was. The entire roster emerged for the final warmups before the Hoyas' loss to No. 10 Kansas on Wednesday night wearing black short-sleeve T-shirts with the words "I CAN'T BREATHE" in bold white letters.
The players wore the T-shirts during the national anthem while lined up across the court, an image that could bring to mind protesters blocking traffic on a city street in silent, nonviolent defiance. Then they shook hands with the Jayhawks before taking off the shirts for the announcement of the starting lineups.
Many notable professional athletes — including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant — have written the message on their warmups or other equipment in recent days, echoing the last words spoken by Eric Garner as police were attempting to arrest him in New York in July. A grand jury decided last week not to indict the officers involved, spurring protests across the country.
It should be no surprise that coach John Thompson III would allow his players to make such a statement. His father, longtime Hoyas coach John Thompson Jr., was known for taking bold positions during a Hall of Fame career, especially in support of minorities. Most famously, the elder Thompson walked off the court before a home game in 1989 to protest NCAA Proposition 42, which restricted the criteria under which athletes could receive scholarships.
After the game, Thompson III gave a detailed, eloquent explanation for the T-shirts, saying it was a player-driven idea that had its origins after the team watched a similar grand jury decision concerning another shooting — that of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri — live on television while in the Bahamas for a holiday tournament.
The coach said the players initially wanted to wear the shirts at the Hoyas' previous game, but he first wanted to have more conversations with them to make sure they all understood the answer to the question: "Why do you want to wear this shirt?"
"You can go from Patrick Ewing wearing a T-shirt underneath his jersey, then it becomes something that everyone does," Thompson III said. "Allen Iverson braiding his hair and playing in the league, then it becomes something everyone does. Kobe wearing the tights and then everyone does it.
"And this isn't that. This isn't one of those things where you go along just because it's something that's trending. We have had a lot of discussions, and the emotions as it relates to the protest the guys wanted to do today, the emotions and the feelings in the locker room are all over the place, meaning not necessarily everyone feels the same way.
"The emotions are from fear to frustration to confusion to anger, and the reasons why every individual wanted to wear it is all over the place, too, which is probably pretty consistent with the emotions across the country right now. ... I think the group wanted to possibly put ourselves in the position to be a part of a process, to help where there's positive change, as opposed to just negative reactions."
Junior guard D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera referenced the names of Brown and Trayvon Martin as he spoke about the protest, saying it goes beyond one case in New York.
"We really wanted to represent those families that all lost (a loved) one," Smith-Rivera said.
Added senior center Joshua Smith: "We didn't wear the shirts to say that the cops were wrong or the system was wrong. We just wore the shirts just to show our condolences to the family because no matter how you look at it, we don't know who was right or wrong, but they still lost somebody. And they won't get that person back."
When Thompson III was asked about his father's legacy of speaking his mind, the elder Thompson spoke up from the back of the room.
"It's a (expletive) school, man," Thompson Jr. said. "That's your responsibility to deal with things like that. We're not a ... damn pro team."
Kansas freshman guard Kelly Oubre was impressed by the Georgetown players' stand.
"That's definitely a powerful statement that those guys collectively made," Oubre said. "I respect them for doing that, and they did it all as a team, too, so it was something good to watch."
Jayhawks coach Bill Self didn't see the protest because he was focused on preparing for the game, but he also supported the players' action.
"It's a pretty strong stance," Self said. "And I think it's pretty good, and it certainly shows a lot of solidarity amongst their unit. And I don't see anything negative with it at all."