GREELEY, COLO. – Officials in eight
northern Colorado counties united in opposition to the state's new gun
control laws and oil and gas regulations are reportedly considering
forming a 51st U.S. state called North Colorado.
The Denver Post reports that a proposal to separate Weld, Morgan,
Logan, Sedgwick, Phillips, Washington, Yuma and Kit Carson counties from
the rest of the state was hatched at a meeting of county commissioners
last week.
Weld County commissioners Sean Conway, Mike Freeman and Doug
Rademacher said they will conduct public meetings and decide whether to
draft a ballot measure by Aug. 1., according to a report in The Greeley
Tribune.
The U.S. Constitution requires that Legislatures must first approve any state that is to be created within its jurisdiction.
Commissioners said Thursday that failed legislative efforts to crack
down on oil and gas, as well as increases in rural renewable energy
standards were "the straws that broke the camel's back."
Conway told the Tribune that Weld County's main economic drivers,
agriculture and energy, are under attack, even though those sectors
contribute significantly to the state's economy. He said the county's
return on its financial contributions to the state are minimal.
Commissioners are also concerned about the lack of funding for
infrastructure and education and believe the split would allow them to
leverage financial investments from energy companies in the region, the
newspaper reported.
Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., whose district would be included in the
split, said in a statement last week that he is sympathetic to the
commissioners' concerns and doesn't blame them for wanting to form a new
state, The Tribune reported.
"The people of rural Colorado are mad, and they have every right to
be," Gardner said. "The governor and his Democrat colleagues in the
statehouse have assaulted our way of life, and I don't blame these
people one bit for feeling attacked and unrepresented by the leaders of
our state."
Gov. John Hickenlooper's spokesman Eric Brown said in a statement
obtained by the paper that "background checks on gun sales, increasing
renewable energy and supporting responsible development of oil and gas
are popular with rural and urban voters."
Conservative Blogger
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
Republican Party Breaking News: Rubio, House GOP Again Warn Immigration Bill Lacks Support Without Border Fixes
LISTED BELOW are several of the arguments that have been used by
misguided people to try and justify illegal immigration. Next to each is
the reason why that argument has no merit.
1) They are an economic necessity - Not true. The idea that a bunch of desperately poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking foreigners are an economic necessity is ludicrous. In fact, when you compare cost vs. benefit, it is obvious that they are not only NOT a necessity, they are not even an asset. Rather, they are a liability and a huge one at that.
2) They do work Americans won’t do - Not true. They do work Americans won’t do for $7 an hour (especially if Americans can collect welfare and unemployment instead). Of course, if you got rid of the illegals, the jobs wouldn’t pay $7 an hour. The people who wanted the work done would have to pay a wage that was attractive enough to get Americans to do the work. And it might even be enough to get Americans off the unemployment and welfare dole and back into the taxpaying workforce!
3) We benefit from all that “cheap” labor - This is nonsense. The only people who benefit from the cheap labor are the unscrupulous people who hire illegal immigrants. Taxpayers are left holding the bag. Ultimately, it is they who must pay to support all the Americans who have been put out of work by illegals and must also provide billions of dollars in services and benefits to the illegals themselves.
4) They are just trying to make better lives - Aren’t we all? The difference is that most of us understand that we DO NOT have a right to acquire by illegal means those things that we find difficult to acquire by legal means. And we certainly don’t have the right to do it in a foreign country.
5) It is impossible to round up and deport the illegals - We don’t have to. All we have to do is remove the incentives that brought them here in the first place. No jobs. No housing. No taxpayer financed services or benefits (including education). Once we remove the incentives that brought them here, they will leave on their own.
6) Immigration control is racist / xenophobic - This is just another play of the race card by people who have no other cards to play. Immigration control is the world-wide status quo. There is nothing racist about it. Furthermore, the USA welcomes LEGAL immigrants of all races and ethnicities from all over the world who have gone through the legal immigration process. This is not just a bad argument, it is an attempt to create racial hatred and division.
7) We are a nation of immigrants - This is the “BIG LIE”. The vast majority of Americans are native-born. I am not an immigrant. Nor were my parents. Nor were my grandparents. We are a nation that has, historically, allowed and even encouraged LEGAL immigration. And we continue to do so. The issue at hand is illegal immigration, which has nothing to do with legal immigration.
8) They are people. We must treat them humanely - Yes & yes. But lets not pretend like they are victims who were dragged here kicking and screaming against their will. Nothing could be further from the truth. They came of their own free will and for their own benefit and they broke the law to do it. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR BREAKING LAWS AND COMMITTING CRIMES. SENDING THEM HOME IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. There is nothing “draconian” or “mean-spirited” about it.
9) It is wrong to break up families- Yes. Unfortunately, families are often broken up by criminal activity. If you don’t believe it, just drop by any prison or jail on visiting day. We can’t keep families together if some family members choose to participate in criminal activity.
10) They work & contribute to our society - So do I. And if I break the law and commit crimes, I can expect to pay a penalty of some kind. Anything from a small fine to the death penalty. I do not receive a reward. WHY SHOULD WE TREAT FOREIGN CRIMINALS BETTER THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?
http://news.yahoo.com/video/republican-party-breaking-news-rubio-210010965.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container
1) They are an economic necessity - Not true. The idea that a bunch of desperately poor, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking foreigners are an economic necessity is ludicrous. In fact, when you compare cost vs. benefit, it is obvious that they are not only NOT a necessity, they are not even an asset. Rather, they are a liability and a huge one at that.
2) They do work Americans won’t do - Not true. They do work Americans won’t do for $7 an hour (especially if Americans can collect welfare and unemployment instead). Of course, if you got rid of the illegals, the jobs wouldn’t pay $7 an hour. The people who wanted the work done would have to pay a wage that was attractive enough to get Americans to do the work. And it might even be enough to get Americans off the unemployment and welfare dole and back into the taxpaying workforce!
3) We benefit from all that “cheap” labor - This is nonsense. The only people who benefit from the cheap labor are the unscrupulous people who hire illegal immigrants. Taxpayers are left holding the bag. Ultimately, it is they who must pay to support all the Americans who have been put out of work by illegals and must also provide billions of dollars in services and benefits to the illegals themselves.
4) They are just trying to make better lives - Aren’t we all? The difference is that most of us understand that we DO NOT have a right to acquire by illegal means those things that we find difficult to acquire by legal means. And we certainly don’t have the right to do it in a foreign country.
5) It is impossible to round up and deport the illegals - We don’t have to. All we have to do is remove the incentives that brought them here in the first place. No jobs. No housing. No taxpayer financed services or benefits (including education). Once we remove the incentives that brought them here, they will leave on their own.
6) Immigration control is racist / xenophobic - This is just another play of the race card by people who have no other cards to play. Immigration control is the world-wide status quo. There is nothing racist about it. Furthermore, the USA welcomes LEGAL immigrants of all races and ethnicities from all over the world who have gone through the legal immigration process. This is not just a bad argument, it is an attempt to create racial hatred and division.
7) We are a nation of immigrants - This is the “BIG LIE”. The vast majority of Americans are native-born. I am not an immigrant. Nor were my parents. Nor were my grandparents. We are a nation that has, historically, allowed and even encouraged LEGAL immigration. And we continue to do so. The issue at hand is illegal immigration, which has nothing to do with legal immigration.
8) They are people. We must treat them humanely - Yes & yes. But lets not pretend like they are victims who were dragged here kicking and screaming against their will. Nothing could be further from the truth. They came of their own free will and for their own benefit and they broke the law to do it. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR BREAKING LAWS AND COMMITTING CRIMES. SENDING THEM HOME IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. There is nothing “draconian” or “mean-spirited” about it.
9) It is wrong to break up families- Yes. Unfortunately, families are often broken up by criminal activity. If you don’t believe it, just drop by any prison or jail on visiting day. We can’t keep families together if some family members choose to participate in criminal activity.
10) They work & contribute to our society - So do I. And if I break the law and commit crimes, I can expect to pay a penalty of some kind. Anything from a small fine to the death penalty. I do not receive a reward. WHY SHOULD WE TREAT FOREIGN CRIMINALS BETTER THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?
http://news.yahoo.com/video/republican-party-breaking-news-rubio-210010965.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container
Thursday, June 6, 2013
New York Times editorial board says administration has 'lost all credibility'
The New York Times editorial board, which twice endorsed President Obama
and has championed many planks of his agenda, on Thursday turned on the
president over the government's mass collection of phone data -- saying
the administration has 'lost all credibility.'http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/new-york-times-editorial-board-says-administration-has-lost-all-credibility/
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
What’s the Penalty If You Don’t Buy Health Insurance? What does Obama do to you?
To buy or pay the penalty?
That is the question that will confront many U.S. residents in the coming months, when open enrollment season begins for health insurance coverage, under the terms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
ACA will be fully implemented on January 1, 2014, when most legal U.S. residents will be required to have “minimum essential health coverage” or make a “shared responsibility payment,” as the Congressional Budget Office puts it in regulations it rolled out last fall. That’s code for penalty.
The penalty “is enforced through a (Internal Revenue Service) tax code,” noted Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C.
So when you file your 2014 tax returns, you will have to let Uncle Sam know what kind of health insurance coverage you have and what, if any, tax credit you are eligible for, unless you can claim you are exempt from buying health insurance.
Non-financial exclusions include:
• You are between jobs and without insurance for up to three months.
• It contradicts your religious beliefs.
• You are an undocumented immigrant.
• You are a member of an Indian tribe.
• You are in jail.
The financial exclusions for not having health insurance include having a family income so low that you don’t have to file an income-tax return, Pollitz said. Or your minimum essential coverage exceeds a certain percentage of your household income for the most recent taxable year. In 2014, that is 8 percent.
Coverage could take many forms. It could be a government-sponsored plan like Medicaid or Medicare, an employer-sponsored plan or a plan purchased on the individual market.
Applicable penalty
The individual one-time penalty under ACA in 2014 will be $95 per adult, or one percent of your income, whichever is greater. So say your annual income is $50,000, you’d pay $500. For every uninsured child, the penalty is $47.50. The family maximum is $285.
“Coverage is assessed on a monthly basis,” said Pollitz. “So if you were uninsured for six months, you’d owe half the otherwise applicable penalty.”
She said that the government has given a wide window – from Oct. 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 – for enrollment this time, but from next year on there will only be a three-month window to sign up.
Will people take the gamble and skip coverage, hoping that their youth or good health will protect them?
If the state of Massachusetts, which passed a landmark health care law in 2006, which became the blueprint for the 2010 ACA, is any indication the number of people who will refuse to get some form of coverage will be low, Pollitz surmised.
In Massachusetts, she observed, “there’s a culture of coverage. Most people want to comply with the law.”
Indeed, within a year and a half after the law passed there, the majority of people signed up for coverage.
But when it comes to the ACA, an estimated 6 million people, who cannot claim legitimate exclusions, will likely take the gamble and remain uninsured in 2016, the government predicts.
Pollitz said there are no criminal penalties to those who violate the law, just a civil one. That could mean seizing your refund.
http://newamericamedia.org/2013/05/whats-the-penalty-if-you-dont-buy-health-insurance.php
That is the question that will confront many U.S. residents in the coming months, when open enrollment season begins for health insurance coverage, under the terms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
ACA will be fully implemented on January 1, 2014, when most legal U.S. residents will be required to have “minimum essential health coverage” or make a “shared responsibility payment,” as the Congressional Budget Office puts it in regulations it rolled out last fall. That’s code for penalty.
The penalty “is enforced through a (Internal Revenue Service) tax code,” noted Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C.
So when you file your 2014 tax returns, you will have to let Uncle Sam know what kind of health insurance coverage you have and what, if any, tax credit you are eligible for, unless you can claim you are exempt from buying health insurance.
Non-financial exclusions include:
• You are between jobs and without insurance for up to three months.
• It contradicts your religious beliefs.
• You are an undocumented immigrant.
• You are a member of an Indian tribe.
• You are in jail.
The financial exclusions for not having health insurance include having a family income so low that you don’t have to file an income-tax return, Pollitz said. Or your minimum essential coverage exceeds a certain percentage of your household income for the most recent taxable year. In 2014, that is 8 percent.
Coverage could take many forms. It could be a government-sponsored plan like Medicaid or Medicare, an employer-sponsored plan or a plan purchased on the individual market.
Applicable penalty
The individual one-time penalty under ACA in 2014 will be $95 per adult, or one percent of your income, whichever is greater. So say your annual income is $50,000, you’d pay $500. For every uninsured child, the penalty is $47.50. The family maximum is $285.
“Coverage is assessed on a monthly basis,” said Pollitz. “So if you were uninsured for six months, you’d owe half the otherwise applicable penalty.”
She said that the government has given a wide window – from Oct. 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 – for enrollment this time, but from next year on there will only be a three-month window to sign up.
Will people take the gamble and skip coverage, hoping that their youth or good health will protect them?
If the state of Massachusetts, which passed a landmark health care law in 2006, which became the blueprint for the 2010 ACA, is any indication the number of people who will refuse to get some form of coverage will be low, Pollitz surmised.
In Massachusetts, she observed, “there’s a culture of coverage. Most people want to comply with the law.”
Indeed, within a year and a half after the law passed there, the majority of people signed up for coverage.
But when it comes to the ACA, an estimated 6 million people, who cannot claim legitimate exclusions, will likely take the gamble and remain uninsured in 2016, the government predicts.
Pollitz said there are no criminal penalties to those who violate the law, just a civil one. That could mean seizing your refund.
http://newamericamedia.org/2013/05/whats-the-penalty-if-you-dont-buy-health-insurance.php
Monday, June 3, 2013
Wife of former IRS chief a top adviser to left-leaning DC group
Wife of former IRS chief a top adviser to left-leaning DC group
Published June 03, 2013
| FoxNews.com
advertisement
Ex-Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who faced a tough round of questioning by Congress last month on the IRS scandal, has denied knowing that the agency targeted Tea Party groups between 2010 and 2012. But he faced new questions following a report that he visited the White House, or the adjacent executive office buildings, at least 157 times during the Obama administration.
Amid the scrutiny, it turns out his wife, Susan L. Anderson, is a senior program adviser for the Washington-based group Public Campaign.
The group bills itself as nonpartisan, and states it is working with “a broad range of organizations” to reform campaign-finance rules.
However, the group receives much of its funding from such liberal groups as the Ford Foundation, Barbra Streisand’s The Streisand Foundation and Health Care for America NOW, a coalition of labor unions supporting ObamaCare that includes the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, according to the Public Campaign website.
In addition, Public Campaign appeared in 2011 to leave little to the imagination about its views on campaign finance – that the wealthiest Americans, specifically the top 1 percent, are trying to buy or influence elections by secretly donating to political groups.
The group produced a “holiday card” video in which one person said: “Sure my kids might get asthma because Congress keeps doing dirty energy’s bidding, but the Koch brothers need their third home.”
David and Charles Koch, successful businessmen aligned with conservative and libertarian causes, have such nonprofit groups as the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and support Tea Party-tied heavyweights like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.
When the scandal over the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups broke, Public Campaign also appeared to defend the tax agency.
Nick Nyhart, chief executive for Public Campaign, suggested to ABC News that the misdeeds of a “few bad apples” within the agency will “make it harder for those questions to be asked without claims of bias.”
Anderson has also been a supporter and apparent participant in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
She participated in Occupy DC events and tweeted such messages as “DC, good morning! Come down to the (National) Mall and tell your 99 percent story.”
Shulman and Anderson met as students at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Shulman was appointed commissioner by former President George W. Bush.
He reportedly logged more than 100 visits to the White House under Obama, a claim he did not deny during congressional testimony last month on the IRS scandal. That number refers to the number of times Shulman was cleared to visit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
