Cliven Bundy

  The standoff is still going on at the Bundy Ranch in Clark County, Nevada.  The Bureau of Land Management is still trying to round up Cliven Bundy’s cattle and exclude him from land his family has grazed on for 150 years.
Bundy is the last rancher in Clark County.
Finally some Republicans are coming to his aid.
From the SacBee:
 A Republican U.S. senator added his voice Wednesday to critics of a federal cattle roundup fought by a Nevada rancher who claims longstanding grazing rights on remote public rangeland about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas
Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada said he told new U.S. Bureau of Land Management chief Neil Kornze in Washington, D.C., that law-abiding Nevadans shouldn't be penalized by an "overreaching" agency.
Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval pointed earlier to what he called "an atmosphere of intimidation," resulting from the roundup and said he believed constitutional rights were being trampled.
Heller said he heard from local officials, residents and the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and remained "extremely concerned about the size of this closure and disruptions with access to roads, water and electrical infrastructure."
This is a story about a powerful government that is out of control.
As mentioned in a blog earlier on Tea Party Nation, the Federal Government own 81% of the land in Nevada.  Why does the Federal Government need that much land?
The answer is, it doesn’t.
The Federal Government should be forced to put most of that land up for sale to American citizens. 
Meanwhile Americans continue to protest the government, which is trying to keep the protests in a so-called “First Amendment Zone.”
That is the problem with this government.
It believes Americans only have the rights it chooses to grant them.

IRS prepares to go after ObamaCare mandate fines

(Bailey) Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! I Guess you little gimme, gimme, gimme Dimocrats are happy now?

With the ObamaCare enrollment deadline in the rearview for most, the IRS is preparing for the next step -- tracking and penalizing those who choose not, or cannot afford, to buy approved health insurance. 
How aggressive the agency will be in pursuing those fines, though, is an open question. The IRS already is under fire over last year's political targeting scandal and talk of harsh fines on the millions who still do not have insurance is a touchy subject in an election year. 
The agency says it is still drafting final tax forms and hiring staff to carry out the task, and is offering some details about how it will collect the penalties. 
For most, the penalty will not apply until early next year. Those who failed to purchase insurance by the March 31, 2014, deadline -- and are not exempt, or did not get an extension -- must inform the government on their tax forms in early 2015. 
The IRS is using a trust-but-verify approach. 
According to the agency, the IRS plans to include a specific line on the 1040 forms for taxpayers to "self-attest" whether they purchased insurance. It will most likely include a worksheet for taxpayers to calculate how much they owe -- essentially either a flat penalty or a percentage of their income. 
But the IRS also said it will aim to detect falsely reported information in the same way it does with income reported on the 1040s -- through a third party. 
Just as employers send a copy of a worker's W-2 forms to the IRS, insurance companies will send the government information on who has purchased a policy. (This could be complicated by the fact that many businesses who originally would have been required to offer insurance to employees now have until 2016.) 
For those who do not buy insurance, the question for the IRS is how far the agency goes to extract the penalty. 
The IRS has said since Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 that it will follow the letter of law for those who fail to purchase insurance -- that is, Americans will face a fine but will not have their property or bank accounts levied. 
"Congress was very careful to make sure that there was nothing too punitive in this bill," then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said in 2010. 
He said at the time that those who fail to purchase insurance will get a letter from the IRS and could have their penalty taken from subsequent tax refunds. But he also made clear the agency "can actually do collection if need be." 
But whether Americans' wages can be garnished remains unclear. 
The penalty will start relatively small, which has led to speculation that many young and healthy people will simply choose to pay it this year as opposed to buying insurance. It starts at $95 per person or 1 percent of family income, whichever is greater. But over the next couple years, it rises to $695 per person -- while aggressively pursuing these fines could prove politically unpopular, failing to do so could also increase deficit projections. 
The IRS did not respond Wednesday to a question about how many additional employees have been hired as a result of ObamaCare. 
The IRS asked in 2012 to hire an additional 1,269 employees, at a cost of $473.4 million, to prepare for the health law's implementation, according to a budget proposal it made to the Treasury Department. 
However, most the requests were for support roles such as information technology or customer service, and few were for agents, according to the Tampa Bay Times' PolitiFact team, after examining the 159-page budget request. 
To be sure, there is already plenty of additional paperwork. 
An estimated 44 million Americans were without insurance before ObamaCare enrollment started Oct. 1, 2013. An estimated 7.5 million enrolled through the government's exchanges, though some of them were people who were kicked off their old insurance plans. 
Some of the low- and middle-income earners who enrolled will be eligible for tax credits.

Pay Gape

Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks out on Brandeis decision to withdraw degree

(Bailey) She's right, everyone at Brandeis are afraid of the Muslims. In the world they out number other religions two to one which means they're the majority. I thought all Democrats in America favored the minorities, guess not!
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women who was supposed to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University only to have it withdrawn amid criticism of her political positions, told Megyn Kelly Wednesday that she wasn't surpised by the school's decision.
"Everytime I say, 'hey, it's important that we talk about this' ... you have people like (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) who deny this," Ali said on "The Kelly File." "This should be addressed."
Ali said she wasn't surprised that the degree was rescinded, though she said she was surprised it was offered in the first place.
"I'm used to it," Ali said. "What surprised me is the decision by Brandeis, first to say we want to give you this honor, we know what you do. In the age of Google, all of this is out there, it's all public."
She went on to speculate that the decision was motivated in part by a fear of offending Muslims.
"There's always this fear that if you insult Muslims, there's going to be some kind of violent reprecussion," she said. "They're not doing their students any favors, and they're not doing their Muslim students any favors."
However, Ibrahim Cooper, a spokesman for CAIR, told Kelly on Wednesday that the organization believed Ali showed bias against Muslims in general, not just radical Islam.
"When a prestigious university like Brandeis is about to honor her and endorse her views, that's when we speak out," he said.
Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, "Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."
Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree.
In 2007, Ali helped establish the AHA Foundation, which works to protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture, according to its website. The foundation also strives to protect basic rights and freedoms of women and girls. This includes control of their own bodies, access to an education and the ability to work outside the home and control their own income, the website says.
More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

IRS employees accused of donning pro-Obama gear, urging callers to vote for him

IRS workers in several offices have been openly supporting President Obama, including by donning pro-Obama paraphernalia and urging callers to reelect the president in 2012, according to allegations contained in a new government watchdog report. 
A report by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, released Wednesday, cited accusations that workers at a Dallas IRS office may have violated federal law by wearing pro-Obama items like shirts, stickers and buttons. The Hatch Act forbids Executive Branch workers from engaging in partisan political activity. 
The report comes as two House committees move to take action against former IRS official Lois Lerner regarding the agency's targeting of conservative groups.
The report, further fueling allegations of bias at the agency, claimed that several accusations were made against the Dallas office claiming pro-Obama gear was “commonplace” there. Employees allegedly wore Obama shirts, buttons and stickers to work and had Obama screensavers on their IRS computers.
The report said it was unclear whether this activity happened before or after the 2012 election, but an advisory was issued to Dallas employees that such activity was prohibited.
Another example cited in the report states an IRS employee in Kentucky also violated the law by touting her political views to a taxpayer during the 2012 election. According to the report, the employee told the caller she was “for” the Democrats because “Republicans already [sic] trying to cap my pension and … they’re going to take women back 40 years.”
The employee then told the taxpayer that she was not supposed to disclose her views “so you didn’t hear me saying that.” The report says the employee admitted violating the Hatch Act and will serve a 14-day suspension.  (Bailey) Wow! 14 day suspension probably with pay.
However, the Kentucky example was not the only IRS employee found to be urging taxpayers over the phone to vote for Obama. The report cites another unnamed customer service representative, who was accused of telling multiple callers in 2012 they needed to vote for Obama.
According to the report, the employee told the callers a chant based on Obama’s last name that touted his campaign and urged them to reelect him. The report does not say where the employee was located, but says the Office of Special Counsel is seeking “significant disciplinary action” against him.
The accusations come as a House committee on Wednesday voted to formally ask the Justice Department to consider criminal prosecution against Lerner. A separate committee will vote Thursday on whether to hold her in contempt of Congress for twice refusing to testify on the targeting scandal.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is an independent government watchdog that investigates claims of wrongdoing by federal employees.

Latest ObamaCare surprise: Most won't be able to buy health insurance until end of year

There is yet another ObamaCare surprise waiting for consumers: from now until the next open enrollment at the end of this year, most people will simply not be able to buy any health insurance at all, even outside the exchanges.
"It's all closed down. You cannot buy a policy that is a qualified policy for the purpose of the ACA (the Affordable Care Act) until next year on January 1," says John DiVito, president of Flexbenefit which has 2,500 brokers.
John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas adds, "People are not going to be able to buy individual and family policies, and that's part of ObamaCare. And what makes it so surprising is the whole point of ObamaCare was to encourage people to get insurance, and now the market has been completely closed down for the next seven months."
That means that with few exceptions, tens of millions of people will be locked out of the health insurance market for the rest of this year.
Only about one in four subsidy-eligible people signed up for health insurance," says Robert Laszewski of Health Policy Associates. "That means about 13 million subsidy-eligible people have not yet signed up for health insurance."
Add to that millions more who waited, or thought the policies under ObamaCare were too expensive and decided just to pay the tax penalty.
Although those who failed to buy insurance during the enrollment period could face a government penalty, most will not have to pay that penalty until they do their taxes next year.
“In all likelihood," says Laszewski, "we've only signed up somewhere between one in five and one in seven people who were uninsured prior to the start of ObamaCare."
That means millions are left outside the health insurance market. There is short term insurance, but anyone with a pre-existing condition can be turned down.
The reason sales of health insurance were crammed into short enrollment periods was so insurance companies would have some certainty about who would be in the risk pool, allowing them to set their rates accordingly.
Goodman explains, "they fear that the only people who will try to buy are people who are sick, and they are going to be expensive. So it’s built into the screwy logic of the whole ObamaCare system."
DiVito puts it this way: "So can you imagine that on July 1, an indvidual's walking down the street, they get hit by a car, the ambulance comes and picks them up and inside that ambulance is an insurance salesman selling them a policy. That is exactly what the insurance industry was trying to avoid."
There is one way consumers can still sign up, but only under limited circumstances.
"If you have a qualifying event, a life qualifying event, which means you get married, you get divorced, you get fired from your job" says Goodman. Or you have a child, or lose a spouse or have a change in income.
"It has to be one of those kinds of events,” he adds. “And if you don’t have that, you're not going to be able to buy insurance."
Barring any of those so-called life events, tens of millions will remain uninsured and won't be able to buy health insurance, no matter how hard they try.

Ukraine

Brandeis University withdraws planned honorary degree for Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali

(Bailey) I'm guessing now that Muslims control the American Schools?
Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty. 
The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence. 
"She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women's rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world," said the university's statement. "That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."
Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, "Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."
Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree. 
In 2007, Ali helped establish the AHA Foundation, which works to protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture, according to its website. The foundation also strives to protect basic rights and freedoms of women and girls. This includes control of their own bodies, access to an education and the ability to work outside the home and control their own income, the website says.
More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.
"This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students," said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.
"But it's not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs," she said. "A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic."
Thomas Doherty, chairman of American studies, refused to sign the faculty letter. He said it would have been great for the university to honor "such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women's rights, who has put her life at risk for those values."
Bernard Macy, a 1979 Brandeis graduate, sent an email this week to university President Frederick Lawrence and several members of the faculty saying, "Thank you for recognizing Ayaan Hirsi Ali for defending Muslim women against Islamist honor violence."
But Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, said, "It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views."
The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.
"This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy," Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. "They feel unwelcome here."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Pro-life teen called 'domestic terrorist' in petition supporting professor of feminism

(Bailey) Instead of this professor pushing her own political agenda, why doesn't  she do what she is paid to do and that is to teach? A supposedly grown woman against a 16 year old, really?

Dueling petitions involving a pro-life teen and a professor charged with attacking her are circulating at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and the student body is backing the teacher.
Students at the University of California at Santa Barbara are circulating the petitions, one in support of feminism Prof. Mireille Miller-Young, and another backing Thrin Short, the 16-year-old pro-lifer whose March 4 demonstration was allegedly broken up by Miller-Young. The one backing the professor, who has been charged with battery and vandalism, has more than 2,000 signatures, while the one in support of Short has 150, according to The College Fix.

“They talk about prioritizing the safety of our campus involving activists, yet it’s our professor that attacks somebody.”- Katie Devlin, UCSB student

“The last thing we need are these people invading our community,” UCSB sophomore Katherine Wehler, a theater and feminist studies major, told the site.
She said pro-lifers with graphic images of aborted fetuses such as Short and her sister carried are like “domestic terrorists.”
However, another petition making its way around the student body calls for Miller-Young’s termination.
“This is about someone who violated the law in several ways, disregarded the idea of freedom of speech, and tarnished the image of the UCSB,” it reads, before emphasizing that it is not a petition in support of the pro-life movement, but one advocating freedom of speech.
“They talk about prioritizing the safety of our campus involving activists, yet it’s our professor that attacks somebody,” UCSB student Katie Devlin told The College Fix. “I think it’s just the contrast that she is a feminist professor and stands for protecting women, yet she attacks a young girl.”
Thrin told FoxNews.com that she and her older sister Joan, 21, were holding signs and demonstrating in a free speech zone on the UCSB campus with other pro-life activists when the feminist studies professor -- who teaches one course on campus titled “Black Women in Pornography” -- approached the group.
“Before she grabbed the sign, she was mocking me and talking over me in front of the students, saying that she was twice as old as me and had three degrees, so they should listen to her and not me,” Thrin Short wrote in an email to FoxNews.com earlier this month. “Then she started the chant with the students about ‘tear down the sign.’ When that died out, she grabbed the sign.”
The professor snatched the sign and then allegedly walked through two campus buildings as Short, her sister and two UCSB students followed her. Short said Miller-Young pushed her at least three times as she tried to stop the elevator door from closing and get back her sign.
Miller-Young was charged last month by the Santa Barbara County district attorney's office with misdemeanor counts of theft, battery and vandalism. She pleaded not guilty last week.

Mozilla

Boehner: Lawmakers to weigh criminal case against Lerner for 'misleading the Congress'

House Speaker John Boehner confirmed to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly Monday that lawmakers plan to press the Justice Department to consider a criminal case against ex-IRS official Lois Lerner for “misleading the Congress.”
Boehner also said if Lerner does not cooperate soon by providing information on the IRS targeting scandal, the House would hold her in contempt of Congress.
“Somebody at the IRS violated the law,” Boehner said on “The Kelly File.”
“Whether it was Lois Lerner or not, we’ll find out.”
A meeting of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to consider contempt is set for Thursday.
But before that, the House Ways and Means Committee will meet Wednesday to prepare a letter to the Justice Department citing possible criminal activity by Lerner.Formal notice was given Monday night by the committee to Attorney General Eric Holder about the referral for possible criminal prosecution of Lerner “based on evidence the Committee has uncovered in the course of investigation of IRS abuses.”
Fox News has learned the letter will argue Lerner violated the constitutional rights of citizens, gave misleading information to investigators and inappropriately released private taxpayer information.
The accusations generally relate to the scandal over the agency's practice of singling out conservative groups seeking non-profit status for extra scrutiny.
Boehner told Kelly that any criminal case against Lerner would be for “misleading the Congress.”
He said at the Ways and Means Committee’s Wednesday session, “they will go over this letter that they have put together outlining names of taxpayers who’ve been harmed and aggrieved and lay out a case for how Ms. Lerner misled the committee.”
He said he also expected that after Easter recess, Congress would take up a contempt resolution against Lerner. He added, “if she’s not going to tell us the truth, we are going to hold her in contempt. The House will vote. The House will hold her in contempt.”
Republicans argue that Lerner played a key role in the agency's practice of singling out conservative groups seeking non-profit status for extra scrutiny as head of the Exempt Organizations Division.
Criminal referrals from Congress to the Justice Department are rare -- and the Justice Department is under no obligation to pursue such a case.
The last major effort of this sort was in 2008, when the leaders of the House oversight committee sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department after they claimed baseball star Roger Clemens failed to tell the truth during a hearing about performance-enhancing drugs.
In that case, the department accepted the referral and prosecuted Clemens. He was eventually exonerated in court.
Asked for comment Monday on the latest pending referral, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said: "They're doing what they think is right, and I'm sure the Department of Justice is doing what they think is right."
Lerner, speaking before the House oversight committee last year, defended herself against the allegations in the IRS case.
"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations," she said.
Lerner, though, refused to answer questions from the committee, and did so again last month.
In his interview with Fox News, Boehner also said House Republicans had not expanded ObamaCare last week with a voice vote to expand coverage choices for small businesses -- a departure from their strategy to try to dismantle or repeal the 2010 health care law.
Asked by Kelly about 2014 midterm election prospects, Boehner said he thought the GOP had a “a real good opportunity” to take the Senate and also to pick up seats in the House.
Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

OBAMACARE

Gallup survey suggests sign-ups under ObamaCare not as high as White House says

A major new Gallup survey suggests the ObamaCare sign-up numbers are not as soaring as the White House claims. 
The massive survey, released on Monday, shows the number of uninsured indeed has fallen to its lowest level in years, likely thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index measured the share of adults without health insurance. That shrank from 17.1 percent at the end of last year to 15.6 percent for the first three months of 2014. 
The decline of 1.5 percentage points would translate roughly to more than 3.5 million people gaining coverage. 
But the numbers, released a week after the close of the health law's first enrollment season, also suggest a far more modest impact on coverage than statistics cited by the Obama administration. 
The administration says 7.1 million have signed up for subsidized private plans through new insurance markets, while 3 million previously uninsured people gained coverage through the law's Medicaid expansion. 
Why the huge difference? For starters, the administration's numbers include people who switched or were dropped from their previous coverage, as well as people who have not paid their first month's premium, and who would therefore still be uninsured. 
The administration is also counting sign-ups dating back to October, though enrollment in the first few months was relatively low. 
According to Gallup, the number of uninsured has fallen by a greater amount since the start of open enrollment on Oct. 1. Gallup shows the percentage spiked to 18 percent at the end of the third quarter. But the spike could be attributed in part to people being kicked off their prior coverage, due to changes in the health care law. A look back at mid-2013 shows the percentage of uninsured, before the run-up to open enrollment, was also at 17.1 percent. So the number of people gaining coverage since then would still be roughly 3.5 million. 
Still, it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison. Gallup is counting just adults, while the administration figures include children as well. 
It may take much of the rest of the year to get a true bottom line of the health care law's impact on coverage. The Gallup survey noted that those signing up for coverage during an extended enrollment period could further drive down the number -- though some enrollees will ultimately choose not to pay their premiums, which would drive the number up. 
But Gallup's numbers do show an improving trend. The share of Americans without coverage is at its lowest since late 2008, before Obama took office, the survey found. 
That's independent validation for the White House, and shows the country at least is not suffering from a net loss of insurance coverage due to cancellations. 
Some feared the cancellations of more than 4.7 million policies that didn't measure up to the law's standards would actually swell the ranks of uninsured people. That created huge political problems for Obama, who had promised Americans they could keep their insurance if they liked it. 
About half the states authorized extensions belatedly granted by the White House. 
Gallup found the biggest insurance gains were among lower-income people and among African-Americans. 
Among people with household incomes of less than $36,000 a year, the share of uninsured shrank by 3.2 percentage points from levels at the end of 2013.
African-Americans saw their uninsured rate drop by 3.3 percentage points. 
Although the proportion of Hispanics without coverage fell by 1.7 percentage points, Latinos remained more likely than any racial or ethnic group to lack access, with 37 percent uninsured. 
Gallup found gains in coverage among all age groups, but not much evidence of a late surge of younger people that the administration had hoped for to help keep premiums in check. 
Results were based on telephone interviews conducted Jan. 2 -March 31 with a random sample of 43,562 adults 18 and older living in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1 percentage point at the 95 percent confidence level. 
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Huckabee

Huckabee: After 14 months Mass. responds to Pelletier family
Apr. 06, 2014 - 4:01 - After overwhelming response to case, parents get answers
 http://video.foxnews.com/v/3438391939001

Obama imposes his policies directly on federal contractors, in 'year of action'

President Obama is imposing his policies directly on federal contractors.
This week, he will sign an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay with each other. The prohibition on the wage "gag rules" is similar to language in a Senate bill aimed at closing a pay gap between men and women. That legislation is scheduled for a vote this week, though it is not likely to pass.
In addition, Obama on Tuesday will direct the Labor Department to adopt regulations requiring federal contractors to provide compensation data based on sex and race. The president will sign the executive order and the presidential memo during an event at the White House where he will be joined Lilly Ledbetter, whose name appears on a pay discrimination law Obama signed in 2009.
This week's steps showcase Obama's efforts to take action without congressional approval and illustrate how even without legislation, the president can drive policy on a significant segment of the U.S. economy. At the same time, it also underscores the limits of his ambition when he doesn't have the backing of Congress for his initiatives.
Republicans maintain that Obama is pushing his executive powers too far and that he should do more to work with Congress. His new executive orders are sure to prompt criticism that he is placing an undue burden on companies and increasing their costs.
Federal contracting covers about one-quarter of the U.S. workforce and includes companies ranging from Boeing to small parts suppliers and service providers. As a result, presidential directives can have a wide and direct impact. Such actions also can be largely symbolic, designed to spur action in the broader economy.
"This really is about giving people access to more information both to help them make decisions at the policy level but also for individuals," said Heather Boushey, executive director and chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth who has been working with the administration to get compensation information about the nation's workforce.
"This is definitely an encouraging first step," she said.
Federal contractors, however, worry that additional compensation data could be used to fuel wage related lawsuits, said James Plunkett, director of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
What's more, he said, such orders create a two-tiered system where rules apply to federal contractors but not to other employers. Those contractors, knowing that their business relies on the government, are less likely to put up a fight, he said.
"Federal contractors ultimately know that they have to play nicely to a certain extent with the federal government," he said.
Separately, on Monday, Obama will also announce the 24 schools that will share in more than $100 million in grants to redesign their schools to better prepare high school students for college or for careers. The awards are part of an executive order Obama signed last year. Money for the program comes from fees that companies pay for visas to hire foreign workers for specialized jobs.
The moves represent a return to economic issues for the president after two weeks devoted almost exclusively to diplomacy and the final deadline for health insurance coverage. A trip to Asia in two weeks is sure to change the focus once again.
Still, Obama has declared this a year of action, whether Congress supports him or not.
In February, Obama signed an executive order increasing the hourly minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 per to $10.10. While White House officials estimated such an increase would affect only a small percentage of federal contract workers, they said the move could encourage states or individual businesses to act on their own to increase workers' wages.
Obama has also pushed his workplace initiatives beyond just federal contractors where possible. Last month he instructed the Labor Department to come up with new workplace overtime rules for all employers, a power the administration has under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
But presidents have most direct power over the workforce that is paid with taxpayers' money.
Obama's go-it-alone strategy is hardly new. The most enduring workplace anti-discrimination laws began with an executive order signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in June 25, 1941, outlawing discrimination based on race, color, creed and national origin in the federal government and defense industries.
President John F. Kennedy broadened that in 1961 with an order that required government contractors to take affirmative action to ensure hiring "without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin."
President George W. Bush also acted on his own when he ordered federal contractors to ensure that their workers were in the country legally by requiring the use of an electronic employment-verification system.
By employing such executive actions, however, Obama has also drawn attention to areas where he has chosen not to act on his own.
The White House has resisted pressure from gay rights advocates who want have Obama to sign an anti-discrimination executive order that would protect gays and lesbians working for federal contractors. The White House wants the House to approve a Senate-passed bill extending those protections to all Americans.
On Friday, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, criticized the White House for saying such an executive order would be redundant if Congress were to pass a White House-supported bill. It's an argument the White House has not made when it comes to minimum wage or anti-gag rule orders imposed on federal contractors.

Fuzzy math from administration over ObamaCare?

By Jim Angle

Published April 04, 2014

FoxNews.com

Although the president and his aides trumpeted the ObamaCare enrollment figures as a success, the administration did not always see those numbers as something to brag about.
In his Rose Garden appearance this week, Obama seemed elated to proclaim "7.1 million Americans have now signed up for private insurance plans through these marketplaces."
But it remains unclear how many of those sign ups have paid premiums in order to be officially enrolled, or how many were previously uninsured.
In addition, even though officials are celebrating the 7 million mark,the White House once minimized numbers twice that large-- the 14 million people in the individual insurance market who were facing cancellations because their policies did not have all the required benefits of ObamaCare.
That created a huge political backlash, in part because the president had promised everyone could keep their plans and doctors "no matter what" -- so the president and his aides played the numbers down as just a small group.
In a news conference last November, Obama portrayed the individual market as a small portion of the insurance market, saying "Keep in mind that the individual market accounts for five percent of the population."
White House spokesman Jay Carney made the same statement repeatedly, including the next day, saying "Five percent of the country (is) in the individual insurance market, a portion of that five percent is affected by the cancellation notices."
Because of the public uproar, Obama asked state officials to allow those policies to be extended.
Twenty-one states, however, including California and New York, flatly refused. California alone had 900,000 individual policies cancelled, adding to a national total of several million.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says "if you look at the 7 million and you shave off the 20 percent who probably haven’t paid, you've got about 5 and a half million people and that's roughly the number of people that were in the individual market and started having their policies cancelled."
That 20 percent number who don't pay has often been cited by insurance sources. Blue Cross/Blue Shield this week confirmed that up to 20 percent of those enrolled by February 1 still have not paid a premium.
As far as the potential cancellations, Carney referred to the 14 million as a "sliver" of the population, even though it's double the number of current signups.
“You need to look at the 7 million in the context of the U.S. population, and that's about 330 million people," says Dan Mendelson of Avalere Health, a non-partisan consulting and analysis firm. "So, this, this program is going to insure about two percent of the total folks who live in the United States."
So while the administration portrayed that two percent as victory, the five percent facing cancellations was minimized, leading Holtz-Eakin to observe that " it can’t be the case that, you know, five percent is no big deal and signing up two percent is a triumph, those two can’t stand simultaneously."
Some of those who were cancelled were forced into ObamCare, which added to the enrollment numbers, even though they only needed insurance because their policies had been cancelled, not because they were uninsured.
Jim Angle currently serves as chief national correspondent for Fox News Channel (FNC). He joined FNC in 1996 as a senior White House correspondent.

Inmates getting coverage under ObamaCare, as states shift cost to feds

(Bailey) No matter how they try to spin it, we the taxpayers get the bill.
WASHINGTON –  The Obama administration often touts that people with pre-existing conditions and countless others can now get covered under ObamaCare. But there's another group that's starting to benefit from the law -- prison inmates. 
Cash-strapped state and local prisons increasingly are using the Affordable Care Act to pay for their inmates' medical costs, taking advantage of a little-known provision that lets them shift some of those expenses to the federal government.
Ohio, Illinois and Iowa are among the states trying to offload the rising costs of health care – which include mental health programs – by enrolling inmates into a new expanded Medicaid program when they get sick. 
But it doesn't stop there. The states also are working to enroll them even before they're released from prison, so they have coverage when they get out.
Currently, 26 states and the District of Columbia are proceeding with a Medicaid expansion which allows them to extend medical coverage to single and childless adults. Jail operators in at least a half-dozen of those states are then, using that criteria, extending coverage to inmates. The shift means the federal government would pay some emergency costs that used to be entirely covered by the states and counties -- plus, inmates are starting to get coverage for when they leave.
Proponents of shifting prisoners into the expanded Medicaid -- in turn giving them access to health care, including mental health and rehab services, when they are released -- say this reduces recidivism. Others, though, argue that federal taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to foot the multibillion dollar bill.
“The political element of ObamaCare is that we were helping what we called the deserving poor or what we used to call the deserving poor,” Manhattan Institute fellow Avik Roy told Fox News. “A group of people who are just down on their luck … bring them the opportunities they need to get ahead and get back on their feet. And sometimes that’s true of people who served time in prison, and sometimes it’s not.”
Former Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota who was on the Senate Finance Committee when ObamaCare passed, put his concerns bluntly in an interview with Bloomberg.
“It starts to look a little like a scheme by the states and local jurisdictions to avoid responsibilities that are really theirs,” he said.
But for cash-strapped states that have figured this out, sending inmates onto the federal rolls may be hard to pass up -- a Pew study of 44 states found that in 2008, prisoner health costs hit $6.5 billion. Further, the benefits for inmates can be significant.
Unlikely to be able to afford private health care coverage when they are released, many inmates previously were unable to get covered. Pre-ObamaCare, Medicaid, a federally funded health option, was available to five categories of people: children below a certain age, the disabled, seniors, pregnant women and parents of Medicaid-eligible children (though some states offered it to more groups).
The ObamaCare expansion extends eligibility to single and childless adults. As for when they're still in jail, while Medicaid does not cover standard health care for inmates, it does pay for hospital stays off-site lasting more than 24 hours. For example, it would pay for complicated in-patient surgeries or stays in a psychiatric facility.
Roy argues that offering health care at a local level is often more efficient and more productive than handing off the responsibility to the federal government. He calls the Medicaid system “poorly designed and poorly structured.”
But states say freeing up millions in their recession-depleted budgets is worth it.
The process begins early for prisoners in Illinois’ Cook County Jail.
Cook County, the largest single-site jail complex in the United States, has started more than 13,000 insurance applications since last April. Once prisoners there are booked, fingerprinted and assigned a cell, they meet with a worker from Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities who helps them apply for Medicaid.
More than 2,000 prisoners already have gone on to receive coverage after their release, Marleza Jentz of the sheriff’s public policy office said.
Jails in California reportedly also are looking at making this shift. And in Iowa, state correction officials and human services departments are setting up a plan to enroll inmates in their public health insurance program before they are released from prison.
Prison officials will likely help inmates complete their applications shortly before they are released. Prison administrators will then send the applications to human services officials who will complete the process and ensure inmates are covered when they are paroled or finish their sentences.
“We want success,” Department of Corrections administrator Katrina McKibbin recently told a group of reporters. “We want increased public safety.”
Iowa releases about 4,000 prisoners a year.
Under the old Medicaid plan, the federal government would pay 58 percent of the cost of care while the state and local government picked up the other 42 percent. Under the expansion of the Medicaid program under ObamaCare, the federal government would absorb 100 percent of the extra costs for the first three years which would then go down to 90 percent by the end of the decade.
Fox News' Jim Angle contributed to this report.

Flood

Mozilla chief learns, if you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job

As we enter this golden age of tolerance and diversity, the nation’s gay rights community is sending a warning message to Americans: If you don’t support gay marriage, you don’t deserve a job.
Apparently, Brendan Eich did not get that message. He’s the former chief executive officer at Mozilla, the technology group that gave us the Firefox Web browser.
Eich resigned under a firestorm of controversy after it was revealed he had donated $1,000 in support of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that protected traditional marriage.
It’s unclear who outed Eich. But that really doesn’t matter. Once his donation was revealed, supporters of gay marriage launched all-out war.

I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.

The Wall Street Journal reported that OKCupid, the popular online dating website, asked its followers to stop using Firefox. The wireless company Credo Mobile gathered more than 50,000 signatures on a petition calling for Eich to resign.
OKCupid posted a letter denouncing the Mozilla CEO, The New York Times reported.
“Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame and frustration are our enemies and we wish them nothing but failure,” the letter stated.
Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property? Why not take away their right to vote? Why not take away their children? Why not just throw them in jail? Why not force them to work in chain gangs? Why not call for public floggings? Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.
Eich won’t say he was forced to resign, but based on the company’s press release, it’s safe to say his days were numbered.
“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it,” Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker wrote in a statement. 
“We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.”
She went on to opine about freedom of speech and equality. In her estimation, one trumps the other.
“Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” she wrote. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”
No, not really, Ms. Baker. Our Founding Fathers sort of worked that out in the Bill of Rights.
I write about this very issue in my upcoming book, “God Less America.” There are pages and pages filled with stories of workers and business owners who’ve either lost their jobs or faced public floggings for their support of traditional marriage.
The left does not believe people who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to engage in the democratic process. And they have a proven track record of intimidating and bullying those who do.
Just ask Angela McCaskill, the chief diversity officer at Gallaudet University. She was suspended after she signed a petition in her church to put a gay marriage referendum on the ballot in Maryland.
Just ask Scott Eckern, the former artistic director of California Musical Theatre. He resigned under pressure after he gave money to support Prop 8. As one activist told The New York Times, “I do believe there comes a time when you cannot sit back and accept what I think is the most dangerous form of bigotry.”
Just ask our nation’s top military officials. They were called into President Obama’s office and told that if they could not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should resign their commissions.
“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked at all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” said Coast Guard Adm. Robert Papp in remarks reported by Buzzfeed.
The road to political correctness is littered with the bodies of folks like Brendan Eich sideswiped by the tolerance and diversity bus.
I trust there are rational and reasonable individuals within the gay rights community who understand the dangers of stifling free speech and expression. But the voices that are winning the day are those who believe gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.
I know this may sound old-fashioned, but gainful employment should not be determined by where you put your reproductive organs.
Tolerance is a bitch, ain’t it?

GOP lawmakers push EPA to ax proposed water rule amid outcry from farmers

  (Bailey) The EPA is another part of your American Government out of control. Everyone has to eat, even the dumb asses that pass these stupid regulations.

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider asserting regulatory authority over streams and wetlands amid intense backlash from farm groups over the agency's proposed water rule. 
In a letter Thursday, the GOP senators faulted the EPA for announcing a proposed rule last week before the government's peer-reviewed scientific assessment was fully complete. They are calling on the government to withdraw the rule or give the public six months to review it, rather than the three months being provided.
The senators' move puts them among several groups -- from farmers and land developers to Western governors worried about drought management -- in expressing concern about a long-running and heavily litigated environmental issue involving the Clean Water Act that has invoked economic interests, states' rights and presidential power.
The letter was led by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and signed by 14 other GOP senators.
"We believe that this proposal will negatively impact economic growth by adding an additional layer of red tape to countless activities that are already sufficiently regulated by state and local governments," the letter to EPA chief Gina McCarthy said.
Meanwhile, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, introduced appropriations language this week aimed at blocking the rule entirely. The proposed language states that "no funds shall be appropriated to study, promote, advertise, implement or otherwise promulgate" the rule. 
“This new rule is another power grab by [President] Obama. This is a brazen attempt to impose a radical redefinition specifically rejected by Congress and the Supreme Court,” Stockman said in a statement. "Green radicals have tried for decades to pass this redefinition by law, but it was too radical to pass even a Democrat-controlled Congress." 
Alisha Johnson, the EPA's deputy associate administrator for external affairs and environmental education, said the EPA's draft scientific assessment, used to inform the proposed rule, was being reviewed and wouldn't be complete until the end of this year or early next year. The EPA rule will not be finalized until the scientific assessment is fully complete, and will take into account public comments, she said. 
The proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary.
At issue is the federal Clean Water Act, which gives the EPA authority to regulate "U.S. waters." Two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 limited regulators' reach, but left unclear the scope of authority over small waterways that might flow intermittently. 
Landowners and developers say the government has gone too far in regulating isolated ponds or marshes with no direct connection to navigable waterways.
Some 36 states, including Pennsylvania, have legal limitations that prevent the EPA from regulating waters not covered by the Clean Water Act, according to the Environmental Law Institute.
Tile drainage systems would not be regulated and there would be no new requirements for irrigation and drainage ditches. Exemptions already granted for farming activities would continue and 53 agricultural conservation practices would be added to the list.   
But farmers who receive exemptions must also engage in an ongoing conversion practice that complies with Natural Resources Conservation Services standards, according to Stockman.
“Once the landowner completes the conservation practice or changes the use of his land, he loses his EPA exemption and must now comply with a new, and more complex, set of rules,” Stockman said. "In other words, the only way a farmer or rancher can exempt himself from the EPA rule is to adhere to a mountain of other new federal rules." 
Criticizing the proposal as a "serious threat" to farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation said Wednesday that the rule would impose new regulatory burdens on farmers, ranchers and other landowners and give the agency veto power over a farmer’s ability to work.
"This is not just about the paperwork of getting a permit to farm, or even about having farming practices regulated. The fact is there is no legal right to a Clean Water Act permit—if farming or ranching activities need a permit, [the] EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers can deny that permit," the group said in a statement.
The proposed regulation, broadly supported by environmental groups, has become a charged political issue in a midterm election year where President Obama has pledged to use his executive power as needed to push through environmental and climate change protections.
"It's the most breathtaking power grab I've seen in a long time, and they wonder why the economy is so weak," Toomey said in a Philadelphia radio interview this week.
Still, the issue is not divided strictly along partisan lines.
The proposed rule has drawn the concern of Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, chair of the Western Governors Association. He has warned federal officials that the rule change could impinge upon state authority in water management and that states should be consulted in the EPA decision-making. In recent years, Hickenlooper has urged the Obama administration to speed approval of water projects because of a looming water supply gap in Colorado.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Energy Department revives auto loan program despite Fisker flop

(Bailey) This is one of many examples of  American Government out of control.



The Obama administration announced this week it is reopening a loan program for advanced fuel-efficient vehicles that was derided by Republican lawmakers last year after two of the first five loan beneficiaries halted operations.
The Department of Energy said Wednesday it is reviving the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program and is reaching out to manufacturers of auto parts and components to apply for more than $16 billion in available funding, The Wall Street Journal reported. 
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the program, which has has provided $8.4 billion in funding since 2009, will have a revised application process to speed up reviews and address concerns from auto makers about the process being too complex.
"Today we are presented with an opportunity to hit the accelerator on U.S. auto manufacturing growth," Moniz said at a conference in Washington. "Motor vehicle parts manufacturers play a significant role in the development and deployment of new technologies to meet the demand for fuel-efficient vehicles." 
The program came under scrutiny after the department lost $139 million on a loan to electric car maker Fisker Automotive Inc., which filed for bankruptcy in 2013. Fisker received $192 million from the program before funding was pulled.
In September 2013, the Energy Department lost about $42 million on a loan to a shuttered Michigan company that made vans for the disabled. Vehicle Production Group, or VPG, suspended operations the same year after receiving $50 million in financing. 
The loan program did have success with electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc., which repaid its $452 million loan in 2013, according to the report. 
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who said at hearing last year that the program never should have considered Fisker, told the Wall Street Journal he questioned administration's plan to revamp the program.
"Despite the Energy Department's appalling track record of loan programs, which put taxpayer money on the line to fund junk-bond-rated companies, this administration will do anything to shove their ideology-driven policy forward.," Issa said in a statement.
The Reublican-led House is expected to vote on a budget proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that would essentially dissolve the auto loan program, the Washington Examiner reported.
At a Thursday hearing on the Energy Department's 2015 budget, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., voiced concerns about the reopening the program. 
"I remain highly skeptical of the federal government playing venture capitalist," Upton was quoted as saying. "The revival of the loan guarantee program that backed Solyndra ... is of serious concern."

Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina

(Bailey) Do you really think all these elections are on the up and up?
State elections officials in North Carolina are investigating hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud after identifying thousands of registered voters with personal information matching those of voters who voted in other states in 2012.
Elections Director Kim Strach told state lawmakers at an oversight hearing Wednesday that her staff has identified 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in two states during the 2012 presidential election.
Strach said the first names, last names, birthdates and last four digits of their Social Security numbers appear to match information for voters in another state. Each case will now be investigated to determine whether voter fraud occurred.
"Could it be voter fraud? Sure, it could be voter fraud," Strach said. "Could it be an error on the part of a precinct person choosing the wrong person's name in the first place? It could be. We're looking at each of these individual cases."
WRAL.com reported that 81 residents who died before election day were recorded as casting a ballot. While about 30 of those voters appear to have legally cast ballots before election day, Strach said "there are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that's not possible."
"We have the 'Walking Dead,' and now we've got the 'Voting Dead,'" said state Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg. "I guess the reason there's no proof of voter fraud is because we weren't looking for it." 
Strach cautioned, however, that in several past cases, instances of so-called zombie voters turned out to be the result of clerical errors. 
"We're in the process of looking at each of these to see," Strach said. "That means either a poll or precinct worker made a mistake and marked the wrong person, or someone voted for them. That's something we can't determine until we look into each case."  
A law passed last year by the Republican-dominated state legislature required elections staff to check information for North Carolina's more than 6.5 million voters against a database containing information for 101 million voters in 28 states.
The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states. However, in those cases middle names and Social Security numbers were not matched.
The analysis also found 155,692 registered North Carolina voters whose information matched voters registered in other states but who most recently registered or voted elsewhere. Strach said those were most likely voters who moved out of state without notifying their local boards of elections.
Republicans leaders immediately touted the preliminary report as evidence they were justified in approving sweeping elections changes last year that include requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls, cutting days from the period for early voting and ending a popular civics program that encouraged high school students to pre-register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.
“That is outrageous. That is criminal. That is wrong, and it shouldn’t be allowed to go any further without substantial investigations from our local district attorneys who are the ones charged with enforcing these laws,” state Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-Wilmington, told the Charlotte Observer.
State House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, and Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, issued a joint statement Wednesday on what they termed as the "alarming evidence." 
"While we are alarmed to hear evidence of widespread voter error and fraud, we are encouraged to see the common-sense law passed to ensure voters are who they say they are is working," said the statement. "These findings should put to rest ill-informed claims that problems don't exist and help restore the integrity of our elections process."
However, other states using the cross-check system have yielded relatively few criminal prosecutions for voter fraud once the cases were thoroughly investigated.
Only 11 people were prosecuted on allegations of double-voting as a result of the 15 states that performed similar database checks following the 2010 elections, according to data compiled by elections officials in Kansas, where the cross-check program originated.
Bob Hall, director of the non-profit group Democracy North Carolina, cautioned officials not to jump to conclusions based on the preliminary database check.
"I know there is more than one Bob Hall with my birth date who lives among the 28 states researched," Hall said. "There may be cases of fraud, but the true scale and conspiracy involved need to be examined more closely before those with political agendas claim they've proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Voting rights advocate Bob Phillips of Common Cause NC told WRAL.com that while he is concerned about the report, it still doesn't justify requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.
"I think a lot of [lawmakers] are saying, 'Aha, this proves what we did,'" Phillips said. "But if I have an ID, how is that going to stop me from voting in North Carolina if I've already voted in Florida?"
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Lower Costs?

Oregon State University pays $101,000 to settle suit over trashed conservative paper

(Bailey) All these so called Universities only want a one party system, theirs!

Oregon State University has paid $1,000 plus $100,000 in legal fees to a former student to settle a lawsuit over the confiscation of distribution boxes for a conservative-leaning student newspaper.
Supporters of the newspaper called The Liberty sued the school in 2009, alleging the university president and other school officials granted the official campus newspaper numerous bins while restricting The Liberty's distribution. 
The suit alleged that school officials confiscated distribution bins for The Liberty and tossed them onto a trash heap. The bins, which contained copies of the paper, were allegedly removed without notice and thrown next to a dumpster.
Lower-ranking campus officials said they removed The Liberty's boxes to beautify the campus, but distribution bins for the campus paper were reportedly left untouched. Top school officials said they had not ordered the destruction.  
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had revived the lawsuit after a U.S. District Court judge dismissed it. The appeals court ruled that it had “little trouble finding constitutional violations” and that the university's policy that led to the alleged trashing "materialized like a bolt out of the blue." 
The Oregonian reported that the university did not acknowledge wrongdoing but agreed to the six-figure payout to William Rogers to end the lawsuit, which was dismissed Wednesday. 
Months after the lawsuit was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases, the university changed its policies to allow approved student groups that publish newspapers to distribute them on campus. 
“We hope this case will encourage public officials everywhere to respect the freedom of students to engage in the marketplace of ideas that a public university is supposed to be,” David Hacker, an attorney with the Arizona-based group said in a statement. “The university has done the right thing, not only through changing their unconstitutional policy, but also by compensating the students for the violation of their First Amendment freedoms.”
Rogers was the paper's executive editor at the time. The Oregonian reported that The Liberty ceased operations at Oregon State after 2009. 
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Think the Koch Brothers Are Among the Top 10 All-Time Political Donors? Sorry, You Are Wrong. Very Wrong.

The Koch brothers, notorious for donating large sums of money to right-leaning political causes, might not be as influential as some may think.

Opensecrets.org recently compiled a list of the top “all-time donors” from 1989 to 2014 and the infamous duo not only fail to take the top slot, but even place in the top 10.
In fact, according to the data, Koch Industries places 59 on the list with $18 million in donations, 90-percent of which went to Republicans.
So who takes the top spot? An organization called “ActBlue” which bills itself as a PAC “allowing individuals and groups to channel their progressive dollars to candidates and movements of their choosing.”
That group has donated more than 97 million to political causes, with over 99-percent going to Democrats.
The Washington Examiner has more:

So who occupies the 58 spots ahead of the Evil Koch Bros? Six of the top 10 are … wait for it … unions. They gave more than $278 million, with most of it going to Democrats.
These are familiar names: AFSCME ($60.6 million), NEA ($53.5 million), IBEW ($44.4 million), UAW ($41.6 million), Carpenters & Joiners ($39.2 million) and SEIU ($38.3 million).
In other words, the six biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats than the Evil Koch Bros.

Click here to see the entire list complied by opensecrets.org.
(H/T: Washington Examiner)

Big Joke

ObamaCare is here to stay, and that’s no help to Democrats

OBAMACARE IS HERE TO STAY, AND THAT’S NO HELP TO DEMOCRATS
David Axelrod said that those who dispute the official White House numbers on ObamaCare enrollments are part of the “black helicopter crowd.” And that dismissive, triumphal attitude was certainly on display as President Obama touted on Tuesday his claim that 7.1 million Americans had signed up for his health law. The underlying message is that the millions of enrollees will act as human shields against Republican efforts to repeal the law. Axelrod may break out the tinfoil hats, but it seems reasonable to ask just how many people rare really benefitting.
[Breitbart: “President Barack Obama’s home state of Hawaii's Obamacare exchange spent $35,749 per enrollee…]
7.1 million… er, 2.5 million… er, 1.2 million… er… - Forbes’ Avik Roy rounds up the available data estimating how many of the enrollees were uninsured before and concludes that only about a third are among the group whose new premium payments are intended to offset the cost of massive insurance regulations under the law. The basic idea of ObamaCare is to require pricier coverage but spread the cost out over a larger market expanded by the enticement of new federal subsidies and the threat of fines for those who don’t enroll. But if fewer than 2.5 million of the president’s mystery 7.1 million are really new to insurance that means dire consequences for everybody else. Yes, bailouts will help soften the blow for insurers, but a the rates being worked up even now by actuaries could still be disruptively high. And if studies that suggest that less than half of those 2.5 million ObamaCare newbies have actually paid, things get even worse.
Just a simple Hawaiian boy, his scrappy health secretary and a dog named Bo -“We didn’t make a hard sell: We didn’t have billions of dollars of commercials like some critics did.” – President Obama congratulating his team on the survival of his health law.

Sebelius has awkward exchange with Okla. news anchor over ObamaCare

Well, that was awkward. 
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had an uncomfortable exchange with a local news anchor in Oklahoma on Monday when he informed her ObamaCare is not very popular in the state.
Sebelius appeared on Oklahoma City’s News 9 on the last day of open enrollment for the health care law to encourage people to sign up. However, anchor Stan Miller informed Sebelius his viewers may be skeptical, as statistics show the law is not popular in the state.
“At last check, 64 percent of Oklahomans aren't buying into the health care plan, they don't like ObamaCare, and they've been pretty vocal about it,” Miller said. “Now that's going to still continue to be a tough sell, but we'll see how that plays out over the coming months.”
In response, Sebelius was silent, staring into the camera until Miller finally broke the pause by thanking her for coming on. Stan then suggested perhaps they had lost sound, since Sebelius was not responding.
“Well I can hear you,” the secretary said, before saying, “Thanks for having me.” Miller then ended the interview.

Krauthammer on ObamaCare enrollment: ‘This is a phony number’

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday on “Special Report with Bret Baier” that while the administration is celebrating hitting 7.1 million enrollees in the Affordable Care Act, that figure just isn’t accurate.
“This is a phony number, and it’s wonderfully precise. These guys go six months without any idea what the numbers are, and all of a sudden, it’s to a decimal point,” Krauthammer said. “But of course it’s meaningless because…we don’t know how many of them have paid…and how many were previously uninsured.”
He said if it turns out the overwhelming majority of those who signed up for the Affordable Care Act had been previously insured, and only signed up for the ACA because they couldn’t keep their plans, the administration may have fallen short of its intended goal of insuring those without health insurance.
Krauthammer went on to press the media to continue pursuing the real numbers, asking, “Are they going to say seven [million] is done and not revisit how many have actually paid, how many were previously uninsured, and of course how many are young and healthy?”

White House runs 'victory lap' after 7M ObamaCare sign-ups, Republicans renew repeal fight

( Bailey ) "How do you like your government taking the right to choose your own destiny"?

While continuing to face deep skepticism from Republicans, President Obama and his team ran a victory lap of sorts Tuesday after declaring that more than 7 million people signed up for health insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges before the midnight deadline. 
"This law is doing what it's supposed to do. It's working," Obama said in the Rose Garden. 
The president spoke pointedly to the law's critics, accusing them of trying to "scare people" and saying "there's no good reason to go back." 
"The debate over repealing this law is over," Obama said. "The Affordable Care Act is here to stay." 
Republicans, though, made clear the debate is not over. "Despite the White House 'victory lap,' this law continues to harm the American people," House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel said. The speaker also renewed his call for the law to be repealed and replaced. 
The president on Tuesday touted the benefits of the program, including the economic security that comes with health insurance and protections that guarantee those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. Earlier, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the total number of sign-ups by the midnight deadline was 7,041,000, not counting those given an extension and those who signed up on state-run exchanges. Despite HealthCare.gov's technical problems and very rocky start, Carney credited a "remarkable surge in enrollment." 
Seven million was the original goal for the program. Still, administration officials were unable to answer key questions about the law and about the enrollment stats. Carney conceded that the administration does not have the "breakdown data" at this point. 
Unanswered is how many people have actually paid their premiums -- those who don't pay will not be considered enrolled. Also unclear is whether enough young and healthy people signed up to offset the cost of signing up older, less-healthy customers. And the administration still cannot say how many of those who enrolled via HealthCare.gov were simply people who had their old policies canceled because of the law. 
Republicans fighting against the law did not let up in the wake of the open enrollment period. 
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., included a provision calling for ObamaCare's repeal in a House GOP budget plan on Tuesday. 
Boehner said the law "continues to wreak havoc on American families, small businesses and our economy." 
"And as I've said many times, the problem was never just about the website - it's the whole law," he said in a statement. "Millions of Americans are seeing their premiums rise, not the lower prices the president promised.  Many small businesses are afraid to hire new workers, instead cutting hours and dropping health coverage for existing employees.  Many Americans can no longer see their family doctor, despite the pledge no one would lose access to their physician. Seniors are feeling the impact, losing their Medicare Advantage plans the president promised they could keep." 
Obama dismissed Republicans' concern about the law during his Rose Garden remarks, saying the "tall tales" have largely been debunked. 
"There are still no death panels. Armageddon has not arrived," he said.   
The president did not address the mix of those signing up for coverage though. 
While Obama has aggressively sought out 18-to-34-year-olds, some of the more recent reports show most of the enrollees are 35 and older. 
Yet the bigger question is perhaps whether the law has indeed helped insure at least some of the estimated 48 million Americans who previously did not have insurance or couldn't get it because of a pre-existing condition. 
The most recent finding by the often-cited McKinsey & Company shows 27 percent of enrollees were previously uninsured and that roughly 75 percent of those who signed up for private insurance under ObamaCare have paid their premiums. 
The White House and other supporters of the law were hoping for an enrollment surge that would confound skeptics. 
The insurance markets -- or exchanges -- offer subsidized private health insurance to people who don't have access to coverage through their jobs. The federal government is taking the lead in 36 states, while 14 other states plus Washington, D.C., are running their own enrollment websites. 
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

April Fool!

ObamaCare sign-ups reportedly on track to hit 7M — but will they pay?

 

THE DEADLINE TO SIGN UP for health insurance under ObamaCare has come and gone, and while the health care overhaul is reportedly on track to sign up more than 7 million Americans, the number of enrollees who have paid for their insurance premiums is still unclear.