Wednesday, April 30, 2014

1 in 7 Americans Couldn't Survive a Week Without a Job

Newsmax


Fourteen percent of Americans, or about one in seven, say they would experience "significant financial hardship" within a week if they lost their job, a Gallup survey reveals.
Another 29 percent say they would face financial troubles within a month if they no longer received a paycheck, while 26 percent wouldn't survive financially more than four months without a job.
Just 17 percent could survive for up to one year, and 14 percent could last more than a year, according to Gallup's poll of adults employed full-time or part-time in all 50 states.
And among those with an annual household income of less than $50,000, 45 percent could not last one month and 25 percent could not last even a week.
Asked how likely it is that they would lose their job in the next 12 months, 16 percent said "very" and 11 percent said "fairly," while 34 percent said "not too likely" and 50 percent said "not at all likely."
"An analysis of these two job-loss questions in combination finds 9 percent of all U.S. workers highly vulnerable to a job loss saying it is very or fairly likely they will lose their job and that they could go up to a week or a month without a job before experiencing financial hardship," Gallup disclosed.
More than 60 percent of adults ages 18 to 34 could go only one month or less before experiencing hardship, compared to 39 percent of those ages 35 to 54, and 25 percent of workers ages 55 and older, most likely because older workers have had more time to build up savings.
Gallup concludes: "With long-term unemployment a serious problem in recent years, many U.S. workers are not in a position financially to go a month, or even a week, without finding a new job if laid off. That underscores the economic hardship that unemployment of any length can bring on U.S. families, particularly for younger and lower-income workers."
Comment:
I'm sorry to say that most of those who couldn't survive a week without a job have no one to blame but themselves.  I, as much as anyone am aware of the high cost of food, gas, rent/mortgage, healthcare, etc., but that's not what I'm referring to.
The average American household has at least $10,000 credit card debt with three different cards.  Minimum payments - which are interest payments and monthly finance charges (a finance charge is a fee you pay for the privilege of being in debt to a credit card bank) plus a few bucks on the principle can add up to as much as $300 a month.  
Then there are your car payments which include mandatory full coverage insurance (I have liability only, but then again I hold the pink slip on my truck).  Some finance companies require you have a life insurance policy that will pay off the loan if you die. With most married couples or those living together, both partners have cars they are paying off.  
Then there is the cable or satellite bill, smart phone bill, internet bill, some are paying off RVs, boats, motorcycles, and all kinds of other crap they wanted but don't really need.  It all adds up to a fortune.  These people have built themselves their own house of cards which could collapse in as little as a week if they lost their jobs.  That's why some people are downright terrified of losing their jobs and will make any concession to their employers to keep them.
Until we learn to live within our means most of us will be little more than slaves to our employers.  Judeo-Capitalists don't just seduce people into buying their junk just to get our money.  They want our money plus they want us in debt for life so they can get away with treating us like slaves.  If we don't take their sh*t we get fired, and our house of cards collapses and we lose everything.  They call that "putting the fear of God into your employees."
So what's it going to be?  Are we going to buy every little trinket that catches our eye on credit and be good little indentured servants, or are we going to live within our means and maintain a little freedom and dignity for ourselves?  That's your decision.  I've made mine. I believe it was the right decision.  I hope you make the right choice as well.
Dan 88!

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Oregon Taxpayers 'Stuck' With Bill From Failed Obamacare Website

Friday, 25 Apr 2014 07:04 PM
By Todd Beamon



Republicans slammed the taxpayer waste from scrapping Oregon's $303 million, problem-plagued Obamacare health exchange on Friday, citing it as yet another example of why the healthcare law should be repealed.

"Once again, Obamacare causes chaos and confusion for Oregonians," Rep. Greg Walden, the state's only GOP member of Congress, said in a statement. "Today, the same board that oversaw the colossal waste at Cover Oregon voted to throw in the towel, and taxpayers are left stuck with the bill.

"The board should explain further to the taxpayers of Oregon and the nation how exactly this massive failure happened."

Jahan Wilcox, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said: "It's remarkable that Cover Oregon was such a disaster that moving into the troubled HealthCare.gov is considered an improvement."

He also referenced  U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley's support of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The Oregon Democrat, who has since distanced himself from the beleaguered law, is seeking re-election this fall.

"Oregonians can give themselves a real upgrade by firing Sen. Jeff Merkley, whose deciding vote for Obamacare resulted in the creation of Cover Oregon," Wilcox said.

The board overseeing the state's Obamacare program, Cover Oregon, on Friday accepted an advisory committee's recommendation to ditch its troubled portal after spending months and millions of dollars on trying to get it to work. Oregon instead will use HealthCare.gov for private policies.

According to Cover Oregon officials, fixing the troubled portal would have cost $78 million and would have taken too long. Using HealthCare.gov, which has had its own share of glitches and problems since the Obamacare rollout, would cost just $4 million to $6 million.

"I don't know that anyone in the room is excited about going down this path," Liz Baxter, who chairs the Cover Oregon board, said in a report in The Oregonian. "But I think it's the only option."

In more than a dozen states that opted to create their own exchanges, Oregon's was seen as the most dysfunctional. It was plagued by technical problems so severe that almost all  the 50,000 people who signed up for insurance through the exchange did so using paper applications or with help from a professional.

Right up to the end, Oregonians were not able to use the website to sign up for coverage in one sitting.

Oregon residents instead had to use an arduous paper-online process to sign up for insurance — despite the $134 million the state paid Oracle Corp. to build the online exchange. Oregon received a monthlong enrollment-deadline extension because of the technology problems.

The state enthusiastically embraced Obamacare, and the website had been a pioneer for state marketplaces.

And even though several other states have had major problems with their Obamacare exchanges, only Oregon has voted to scrap it entirely. Maryland recently decided to adopt the technology used on Connecticut's successful exchange.

In March, the Government Accountability Office in Washington said that it would investigate the Oregon exchange, including looking at whether the federal government can reclaim grant money given to Cover Oregon if taxpayer funds were mismanaged.

Officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said they were working with Oregon on the next steps in the effort.

Meanwhile, an independent investigation ordered by Gov. John Kitzhaber found state managers repeatedly disregarded reports about technical problems that prevented the Cover Oregon exchange from launching when the Obamacare individual mandate took effect in October.

It also found that Oracle did a poor job in building the exchange's technology. Five Oregon officials connected to website's development have resigned.

Kitzhaber said communications about the portal's troubles never reached him as the Oct. 1 launch neared. The governor said he agreed with the technology advisory committee's recommendation to scrap the website.

State officials said they would keep the Cover Oregon website, redesigning it to direct people to HealthCare.gov. Oregon also will use the federal call center, but it will retain some customer outreach, education efforts and initial carrier management.

Because HealthCare.gov enrolls people only in private health plans, Oregonians who are declared eligible for the Medicaid program for low-income Americans will be redirected to the Oregon Health Authority.

That agency can enroll them in the Oregon Health Plan, Oregon's version of Medicaid.

So far, about 242,000 Oregonians have enrolled in coverage through Cover Oregon. About 70,000 are in private plans, while 172,000 are enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan.


Comment:

Here we go again!  The government screws up, and the people get stuck with the bill.  So typical.

The article said, " So far, about 242,000 Oregonians have enrolled in coverage through Cover Oregon. About 70,000 are in private plans, while 172,000 are enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan."

242,000 have enrolled through Cover Oregon.  Once again, enrolled is not a purchase.  Coverage starts when the payments begin.  70,000 private, 172,000 Obamacare.  As of 2014 the population of Oregon is approximately 4,000,000 (Source:  Wikipedia).  That means Obamacare has helped (if it indeed has helped at all) about 2.5 percent.  Pretty pathetic numbers.  Surely there are a lot more uninsured people there than 242,000.

So what we have is even more proof that Obamacare is a bust.  The need for real universal healthcare is more dire than ever.  But how do we start.  I'm no expert I can assure you, but it seems to me that if the government had its own insurance company - and I'm not talking about Medicare.  I'm talking about a public owned insurance company that is NON-PROFIT.  That way premiums could be set to sustain the system and not for profit.

The next step is to crack down on the healthcare industry itself.  There is no reason a simple doctor's visit should cost hundreds of dollars or medication should cost $50 a pill.  That's not just ridiculous, it's criminal.  If Hippocrates were alive the state of healthcare would make him sick - pun intended.  But I believe it would make him sick.


I swear by Apollo, the physician to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. [Interesting. - Dan]
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they free or slaves. [No sex with patients. Yeah right. - Dan]
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.

The way I see it is that the healthcare industry today has turned the Hippocratic Oath into nothing less than a dirty piece of paper.
Dan 88!

Monday, April 28, 2014

Germany opens door for National Socialism in EU election

By Toby Axelrod, March 20, 2014

A German Supreme Court ruling meant to protect democratic values has paved the way for extremist and anti-democratic parties to win seats in the May EU Parliament elections.
While parties still need to get 5 per cent of the vote to win seats in German legislative bodies, the court found in favour of groups who claim that the existing 3 per cent hurdle for the EU Parliament is anti-democratic.
The ruling amends a German court decision in 2011 which reduced the threshold for European elections from 5 to 3 per cent in response to a challenge by fringe parties. But these parties naturally wanted the lowest possible threshold and challenged that ruling, too.
As a result, a German party can get a seat in the EU Parliament with just 1 per cent of the national vote.
Among those celebrating is Germany’s main neo-Nazi party, the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), which is promoting former chairman Udo Voigt and military historian Olaf Rose as its EU Parliament candidates.
On its website, the party rejects the Western-oriented “unipolar world order” — in other words, the EU. And yet it proclaims proudly that there is “no doubt that the NPD will move into the European Parliament at the end of May”.
Numerous German political and religious leaders have argued that the NPD is racist, antisemitic and anti-democratic and should be banned.
A banning attempt in 2003 failed, when the German Supreme Court revealed that informants had actually instigated some of the very transgressions under investigation. Skeptics say another failed banning attempt would be an embarrassment to Germany. Now though, Germany faces a potentially even greater embarrassment: the chance that a homegrown neo-Nazi party could have a voice on the EU level even though it has failed to gain such prominence at home. The NPD so far has only managed to win a few seats in German state legislatures.
The domestic elections hurdle of 5 per cent was designed to prevent small parties from banding together and blocking the democratic process, as happened in 1933 when Hitler was elected without actually gaining a majority.
Last year a study for the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a German conservative think tank, and the Centre for European Studies (CES) warned that xenophobic, far-right and populist parties could take more than 25 per cent of the EU parliament seats in May, if a concerted effort is not made to oppose them.
With the recent Supreme Court decision, this warning takes on even greater urgency.
Comment:
At least in Europe, our time has come again!  If the May elections are positive for us there, it may be a great encouragement to National Socialists in this country.
Folks, once again I must comment that the reason European National Socialists are so much more successful than we are is because they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve victory.  For them, there is no sacrifice too great.  They donate, they work, and they give their all.  Americans it seems are just not willing to do that, so we keep languishing.
You are not likely to hear a European NS say, "I can't hand out literature now, the big soccer game is on."  Or, "I worked hard all week.  I deserve my 'me' time."
The National Democratic Party, which in reality is the German National Socialist Party (the name National Socialist ist verboten in der EU - actually it's "ist in der EU verboten") has held offices at the state level for years. This is their chance to make it to the federal level. Meanwhile we American National Socialists are still struggling at the local level.  And we will continue to struggle until everyone who calls themselves National Socialists are willing to take off their WW II Halloween costumes, do some real donating, and work their asses off just like our Euriopean comrades have been doing for decades.  Their hard work and dedication is paying off.  We won't see a payoff until we're willing to do the same.
Our May Blitz officially begins on Thursday.  Let's get out there and get that literature to the people.  If you haven't ordered or downloaded any yet, it's not too late.  The NDP started the same way as the ANP.  They started in Chairman  Gunter Deckert's house.  They put out literature, and when ready they had organized political rallies WITHOUT WW II costumes, then they ran for local offiices and won, state offices and won, and now they are ready for federal offices. If we can't get anyone to get out and at least hand out literature, then for American National Socialists, federal offices might as well be in another galaxy.
To our German comrades I say, "Viel Glück nächsten Monat und Sieg Heil!"
Dan 88!

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Proposal To Divide California Into Several New States



BTW, I live in what would be called "Hotter'nhellifornia" near the border of "Suburbifornia".

Also, notice the small area called "Dysfunctionfornia."  If you're not a Californian you might not get that.  That area is Shasta County.  In California, the state prison system has a habit of releasing certain kinds of criminals in certain areas.  Unless parolled convicts have a home to go to, the prison system loves to release armed robbers here in San Bernardino County.  It's called "Dumping" them.  Shasta County is where they like to release sex offenders, hence the name "Dysfunctionfornia."  It could also be referring to Sacramento, I'm not sure which.

Technifornia is of course The Silicon Valley.

Botoxifornia is Hollywood-Bel Aire-Brentwood.

Militarifornia is San Diego County with the big naval base near the city and the gynormous marine base Camp Pendleton near the city of Oceanside.

Leftifornia is appropriately the San Francisco-Berkley area.

Agrifornia is the Central Valley.

Skifornia are the Sierra Nevada Mountains which includes Mammoth Mt.

Suburbifornia are the Los Angeles suburbs.

Hempifornia is where a lot of California's pot comes from.

Surfornia are the popular surfing spots like Malibu, Zuma, and Santa Cruz (also popular with Great White Sharks - seriously).

Sandifornia are where a lot of desert sand dunes are located.

Emptifornia, well there isn't much up there.  It has the lowest population in the state which means it's probably not a half bad place to live.

Dan 88!

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan's Affirmative Action Ban

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan's decision to end affirmative action at its public universities in a 6-2 ruling, but the justices were divided in their reasoning, suggesting continued uncertainty over the broader issue of racial preferences.

The ruling leaves in place a 2006 Michigan ballot initiative where voters ended race-based admissions at state schools, and means racial preferences won't soon return to the University of Michigan—or any other public university in states that have chosen to end the practice.

"Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in backing the law.

The court's ruling didn't alter the ability of universities in states without bans to consider race as one factor among others in admissions. Instead, the court chipped away at affirmative action by giving its blessing to one path for foes to challenge admissions policies: ballot initiatives. Opponents have also gone to courts and state legislatures to end affirmative-action practices in a decadeslong battle over university policies.

Eight states, including California, have ended affirmative action since 1996. Practices vary widely among institutions. The higher-education establishment generally favors the use of racial preferences to promote diversity in the student body. Many of the nation's most selective universities—including the Ivy League, the U.S. military academies and flagship public institutions such as the University of Texas at Austin and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—employ affirmative action.

Race-based admissions policies are at issue in a continuing lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin. In that case, involving a white student who challenged admissions policies after being rejected, the Supreme Court ducked the chance to rule directly on affirmative action in June 2013, and returned the case to a lower court.

Earlier this month, Edward Blum, an activist who has underwritten the lawsuit against Texas, set up websites seeking potential plaintiffs to sue Harvard University, the University of North Carolina and the University of Wisconsin over affirmative-action policies he believes are unlawful.

Tuesday's ruling saw both the court's right and left wings splinter, suggesting the justices are far from consensus on when affirmative action may be allowed, an issue sure to return to the court in the coming years.

The Supreme Court upheld a ban on affirmative action in Michigan, voting 6-2 that states may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution. Martha Jones, University of Michigan professor of history, law and African-American studies, offers analysis. Photo: Getty.

The court's five conservatives produced three different opinions. Justice Stephen Breyer split from two liberals to side with Michigan for separate reasons. The fourth liberal justice, Elena Kagan, recused herself, presumably because she was involved in the case in her previous post as U.S. solicitor general.

The closest the court came to consensus was a plurality opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Justice Kennedy tried to walk a moderate line. He acknowledged the U.S.'s painful history of racial exclusion, while concluding Michigan voters retained the prerogative to adopt a ballot initiative expressly prohibiting both discrimination and preferences.

"The electorate's instruction to governmental entities not to embark upon the course of race-defined and race-based preferences was adopted, we must assume, because the voters deemed a preference system to be unwise on account of what voters may deem its latent potential to become itself a source of the very resentments and hostilities based on race that this nation seeks to put behind it," Justice Kennedy wrote. "Voters might likewise consider, after debate and reflection, that programs designed to increase diversity—consistent with the Constitution—are a necessary part of progress to transcend the stigma of past racism."

Seemingly trying to cool emotions, Justice Kennedy stressed at the outset "what this case is not about. It is not about the constitutionality, or the merits, of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education."

Instead, he wrote, the issue was which level of government held the power to decide if affirmative action to promote diversity was an appropriate policy in public institutions.

Michigan said it was pleased with the ruling. "Our state Constitution requires equal treatment in college admissions, because it is fundamentally wrong to treat people differently based on the color of their skin," Republican state Attorney General Bill Schuette said. "A majority of Michigan voters embraced the ideal of equal treatment in 2006, and today their decision was affirmed."

Civil-rights advocates called it a setback. "We think it's a terrible decision," said George Washington, an attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, a Detroit-based advocacy group that challenged the ballot initiative, Proposal 2. "It allows the voters of each state to decide what the rights of minorities should be and whether they should be admitted to the most selective universities."

Prior to Tuesday's Supreme Court decision, eight states had ended affirmative action, or preferential treatment based on race, at public colleges:

California—in 1996
Washington—1998
Florida—1999
Michigan—2006
Nebraska—2008
Arizona—2010
New Hampshire—2011
Oklahoma—2012
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Statistics tell a mixed story about race since the 2006 initiative nixed race-conscious admissions policies. Black enrollment at the University of Michigan fell to 4.82% in 2013 from 6.12% in 2009, university numbers show. But Hispanic enrollment grew slightly to 4.97% from 4.47% during the same period.

The university has been a frequent battleground over affirmative action. In 2003, a narrowly divided Supreme Court upheld the practice at the university's law school, but struck down a different point-based method it employed for undergraduate admissions, saying it made race too dominant a factor.

Three years later, Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, only to see it thrown out in 2012 by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Cincinnati-based court cited Supreme Court precedents from 1969 and 1982 striking down voter initiatives that restructured the "political process" to disadvantage minorities, but Justice Kennedy said Michigan's ballot initiative couldn't be compared with the circumstances in those earlier cases.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed a 58-page dissent and summarized it from the bench, signaling strong disagreement with the majority.

Justice Sotomayor wrote that Michigan voters "changed the basic rules of the political process in that state in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities." In order to obtain admissions preferences, they now would have to amend the state Constitution, she wrote, while other groups—such as alumni children or athletes—could obtain admissions preferences more easily, such as by lobbying administrators.

She also mocked as "out of touch with reality" Chief Justice Roberts's statement in a 2007 desegregation decision that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." She wrote, "race matters," adding that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination."

That brought a response from Chief Justice Roberts. "It is not 'out of touch with reality' to conclude that racial preferences may…do more harm than good."

Comment:

Most of the time I only post bad news.  It's nice to be able to post good news occasionally.

Of course the moment the Supreme Court made their decision the whining and complaining started.  I would like to point out a couple of things.  The article said the number of Black college students has declined.  Of course they blame Whitey for this.  However, it also said the number of Mestizo admissions has risen.  Rather than blame us, maybe Blacks should blame the Mestizos.  Or better yet, maybe they should blame themselves.  If you can't pass the admissions test, you're to blame and no one else.  As a former teacher I can say with authority that the admissions exams to state colleges is at about the 10th grade level.  So if you are a high school graduate, you should be functioning at the 12th grade level, and if you are not, then how in the hell did you manage to graduate in the first place?

I would also like to point out that history has shown that no privileged group has ever given up their privilege without a struggle and Affirmative Action was and still is in some states a privilege for everyone except Whites.  Whites fought against racial equality not out of hatred, but out of not wanting to give up any advantage that being White had.  We didn't want to have to compete with them.  For most of us it had nothing to do with hate.  It was basically, "I have mine and I don't want to share it."  It sounds a little greedy, and I'm sorry to say that everyone can be greedy, not just Judeo-Capitalists.

National Socialism emphasises that we must all be responsible for our own actions.  The Fuhrer said that many times.  We have become a society of blame-placers.  "It's not my fault. Whitey is keeping me down." "It's not my fault, the Spics are crowding us out."  "It's not my fault. Those damn Gooks always beat me out on tests." (maybe you should study harder instead of watching the game)  This country will be a far better place when people start blaming themselves for their problems instead of everyone else.  

BTW, it really is a total surprise to me that California was the first state to do away with Affirmative Action.  Will wonders never cease?  I'll bet it happened in 1996 because that was probably the year Whites became a minority in this state.  

Dan 88!

Friday, April 25, 2014

NY Gov. Cuomo Signs Law to Rig Electoral College

Wednesday, 16 Apr 2014 10:57 PM
By Todd Beamon

Image: NY Gov. Cuomo Signs Law to Rig Electoral College
Governor Cuomo


The campaign to effectively end the Electoral College's role in presidential elections has received an additional boost from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Cuomo signed the National Popular Vote Compact on Tuesday, under which the state would award its 29 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.

The state's electoral votes currently go to the winner of New York's popular vote, the New York Daily News reports.

The campaign has come under fire from Republican political consultant Dick Morris, who charged in an exclusive Newsmax column that the compact is ripe for voter fraud and would guarantee that Democrats win the White House every four years.

In New York, the bill was approved last month by both houses of the state legislature. It gives the effort 165 votes, more than 60 percent of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.

New York is the 10th state to join the effort. The District of Columbia, with three electoral votes, has also signed the agreement.

The other states are Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, and Washington.

"With the passage of this legislation, New York is taking a bold step to fundamentally increase the strength and fairness of our nation's presidential elections," Cuomo told the Daily News.

Established by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Electoral College officially elects the president and the vice president of the United States. Its "electors" are chosen by popular vote on a state-by-state basis — and they officially cast the "electoral votes" for the nation's top two leaders.

In his Newsmax column, Morris said all of the jurisdictions supporting the popular vote compact backed President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

In addition, Morris said, the compact has been voted on by at least one legislative body in these states: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon.

Those states total 78 electoral votes, and eight of them also voted for Obama, Morris said.

Morris slammed the effort, which is supported in part by the Center for Voting and Democracy, an election group supported by the liberal billionaire George Soros.

"Republicans need to kill this proposal, and they better get busy doing it," Morris said. "Some small states are backing it because they are tired of all the attention being focused on swing states.

"But Republicans must stand firm and not yield to the temptation to back it."


Comment:

Now as most of you know I don't waste my time with presidential elections - and I won't until a time comes when Third Party candidates have a reasonable chance at winning.  As long as it's just the Democans and the Republicrats it doesn't matter.  To run for president in either party you have to be a member of the millionaires/billionaires club and be willing to sell your soul to the Judeo-Capitalists.

However, for those who are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils, and those who may even still believe in the system, I'm all for disposing of the electoral college.  As things are, the people's vote aka the Popular Vote means absolutely nothing.  The president is chosen by the electoral college and not by popular vote. The popular vote is more like an opinion poll than a vote.  And the electoral college is in no way obligated to vote the way the people vote. Lincoln lost the popular vote.  So did George Dubya Bush.  They were elected against the majority of the people's vote by the electoral college.  So if our vote basically means nothing, why bother at all?  We should either dispose of the electoral college or dispose of the popular vote. We don't need both.  

Electors are elected by popular vote, unless an elector drops out, or becomes ill, or dies too close to the election which for them is in December.  If this happens a replacement is appointed by the state's governor. If the state's governor is a Democrat, you can be sure he'll appoint another Democrat.  Electors are chosen based on a pledge to vote for a particular candidate.  However there is no law whatsoever that requires an elector to honour that pledge.  Once elected to the college he can vote for whomever he pleases.  That doesn't sound like looking after the interests of the people to me.  It sounds like elitists voting for other elitists.

Bearing this in mind, if somehow a National Socialist candidate won the popular vote do you think in a million years the electoral college would elect him?  NO WAY!

As far as I'm concerned, I say let's dissolve the electoral college.  I don't see how it could make things any worse.  It might even be an improvement.


Dan 88!


Thursday, April 24, 2014

The USPS wants to mine and sell data gathered from your mail

By Giuseppe Macri

United States Postal Service Letter Carrier Lakesha Dortch-Hardy sorts mail at the Lincoln Park carriers annex in Chicago, November 29, 2012. The USPS, which relies on the sale of stamps and other products rather than taxpayer dollars, has been grappling for years with high costs and tumbling mail volumes as consumers communicate more online.  REUTERS/John Gress (UNITED STATES - Tags: SOCIETY BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT) - RTR3CKKA

The United States Postal Service is looking to get in on the big-data-for-profit game played by tech giants like Facebook and Google, and begin mining and selling private data gathered from personal mail sent from and received by Americans everywhere.

USPS chief marketing and sales officer Nagisa Manabe recently told the forward-looking PostalVision 2020 conference that the post office is “actively looking for ways to build new business lines around what not long ago might have been considered science fiction,” eCommerce Bytes reports.

While some of those ideas included new delivery services from partnerships like grocery chains, others seek to increase revenues from advertising by mining, storing and analyzing customer data. By mapping those datasets and determining consumer behavior, advertisers and retailers could target more effectively through traditional mail, much the same way Facebook and Google target ads based on search, profile, email and other data.

Manabe described an example scenario in which a woman test drives two different types of cars and two different dealerships while trying to decide which to buy.

“We’re at the point where, all too soon… We’re going to know exactly that she was shopping at two different car dealers looking at cars, and both of those car dealers should be mailing her communication about that vehicle, right?” Manabe said. “And we’re there now, folks. I mean, you all know this. There are dozens of folks out there who are supplying that kind of information. If we’re not testing and exploring some of that together, we should.”

Manabe described the obvious marketing opportunity as too big for USPS to pass up in the emerging digital world.

“As we know more and more about how consumers are traveling around and making their decisions, it behooves us to get involved and actually send them information to actually close the deal,” Manabe said. “For me, it’s all about speed and accuracy of the mail.”

Similar practices have been employed by Silicon Valley’s biggest companies for years, but have recently come under increased scrutiny since the disclosures of widespread National Security Agency bulk Internet and telephone data collection and surveillance programs were leaked by former contractor Edward Snowden last year.

The agency recently revealed private companies like Facebook, Google and others cooperated with one of NSA’s biggest Internet surveillance programs after months of denial, raising the potential for similar and ever greater cooperation between federal intelligence agencies like NSA and an independent agency like USPS.

Comment:

Our privacy rights just continue to be eroded by the system.  Before long we won't even be able to use our own bathrooms without someone knowing about it.  I guess they would want to know that so they can market toilet paper and soap to us better.

It's always about $$$.  That's always the bottom line with everything.  SHOW ME THE MONEY!  I'm fed up with it.  I'm sick and tired of companies continually shoving their sh*t in my face.  

Just yesterday I'm reading an article on line when right in the middle of a sentence an ad pops up filling the entire screen.  I guess advertisers are finding ways to get around pop up blockers.  But I can't help but think that these pop ups are a total waste of money.  I don't know about any of you, but when I'm reading something and an ad pops up I get annoyed.  I immediately click it off and often I don't even know what they were advertising, so it can't be a very effective technique.  Do you take the time to read such an ad or do you click it off straightaway too?

I don't need the Madmen telling me what I need.  I already know.  And quite frankly what motivates me on what to buy is the price.  I generally go with whatever is cheapest.  I don't care which is the coolest, or slickest, or most popular, or what has the most features.  I only care about which is the cheapest and can it do what I need it to do.

To me, advertising is like an itch that just won't go away.  I wish they made an anti ad cream instead of just an anti itch cream.  Now that's something I would buy in an instant!

Dan 88!




Wednesday, April 23, 2014

O'Reilly: Fraud, Not Racism, Behind Voter ID Card Proposal

Wednesday, 16 Apr 2014 11:15 AM
By Sharon Churcher

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly castigated liberals who claim voter ID laws are motivated by racism, calling the outcry a "ruse" manufactured by an extreme left "grievance machine." 

The Daily Caller reported that O’Reilly is supporting a new proposal by former President Bill Clinton and former United Nations ambassador Andrew Young that would add photos to Social Security cards and use them to verify the identity of voters at the polls. 

Defending the proposal against allegations of bigotry, he said: "The left denies any voter fraud, which is absurd. Just this month, North Carolina launched a huge investigation into alleged voter fraud. One of the accusations said some folks voted in two states. Also, at least 81 North Carolinians voted in 2013 after they died.

"Voter IDs would make fraud more difficult, everybody knows that. But still, the far left objects.

"This is a ruse, because the grievance industry wants people to think the Republican Party is suppressing votes, and if you take that issue away they have one less thing to whine about. Enough’s enough. There comes a point when craziness has to be rejected."

The O'Reilly Factor show also featured conservative commentator Monica Crowley, who disagreed with O’Reilly. She said she supports voter ID cards but that they should not be issued by the federal government.

"It should be better left to the states," she said. "The states run their voting rolls."

Comment:


The liberals really show just how much they are full of sh*t when they say that voter ID is racist. Just how, pray tell is that racist?  The only ones who don't have the proper legal ID are illegal aliens, and even if they were legal they can't vote because they are not citizens.  No country on Earth allows non-citizens to vote and neither should the United States.  If that's racist then the whole world is racist - even non-White countries. After all, you can't vote in Mexico unless you're a citizen.  But then again liberals seem to think it's okay for non-White countries to do that but if White countries do the same thing then it's racist.  I am sick and tired of their damn double standards.

Voter IDs are not an attempt to disenfranchise non-Whites.  How could that even work?  If you're a non-White and you don't have the propor ID then GET one.  There's no reason not to have one.  Again, I can't speak for the rest of the country but in California I believe it costs $20 for a state ID card with a photo which must be renewed every four years.  That's five dollars a year.  It's very reasonable so I don't buy the old, "They're too poor to be able to afford one." That's crapola.  Just give up beer and smokes for a week or two and there's your $20 right there.  If you prefer to smoke and drink instead of voting then that's your choice and your fault.

Out west we have larger states than back east.  Here in California many people go their whole lives without ever leaving the state.  When I was a kid, my uncle owned a condo in Lawrence, Ma.  He owned a house in Seabrook, Beach NH about an hours drive away.  If he were alive today he probably could have gotten away with registering to vote in both states by simply leaving out his middle intial in one state.  It would have been easy.  With it taking so long for westerners to get from one state to another, it could be done, but not as easily.  Remember all the killings in the movie "Silence Of The Lambs"?  Buffaloe Bill killed several women in several states and he drove to each one in his van and back home again because those states are so much smaller than out west.  Voter fraud is much easier in smaller states than larger ones, and those of us out west often don't consider that fact.

The only people I want to disenfrachise are illegal aliens and dead people.  Neither should be allowed to vote.  Remember, the article said 81 dead people voted last year in North Carolina.  Maybe they were zombies.  "Me vote for Obama.  BRAINS!  BRAINS!", said the leader of the National Association For The Advancement Of Zombies (NAAZ).




Voter ID would help prevent this.  But then again maybe that's what the liberals are afraid of.  I'll wager most of the fraud favoured the Democrats.  The Democrats control almost the entire government.  They are so close to total control some might be willing to do anything to get the Republican minority out of the way so they can have it all.  The end justifies the means.  Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527) said that in his famous book "The Prince".  He was put in prison for it.  Something to think about.


Dan 88!

Monday, April 21, 2014

White House Census Changes Mask Obamacare Impact

Tuesday, 15 Apr 2014 09:51 PM
By Todd Beamon

The Republican chairman of a House panel that oversees the U.S. Census Bureau slammed the Obama administration on Tuesday over reports that extensive changes to the agency's annual survey will make it virtually impossible to track how Obamacare has affected Americans.


"The census should not be political," Texas Rep. Blake Farenthold told Newsmax in a statement. The two-term congressman is chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and the Census.

"These reports do nothing but give more weight to Americans' level of general distrust in the Obama administration, especially after the president's failed promise that 'if you like your health insurance, you can keep it,'" Farenthold said.

The extensive revamping of the bureau's survey, which is to be used in September, was approved by the Office of Management and Budget, The New York Times reports.

"We are expecting much lower numbers just because of the questions and how they are asked," Brett J. O’Hara, chief of the Census Bureau's health statistics operation, told the Times.

The bureau is long considered the authority on health data, the Times reports. The changes seek to improve the survey's accuracy, but bureau officials told the newspaper that the questions are so different that it will be very difficult to compare the results with data from previous years.

The new survey includes a "total revision to health insurance questions" and, in a test last year, produced lower estimates on uninsured Americans, according to an internal report from the bureau quoted by the Times.

As such, the new findings will make it hard for officials to determine what changes in recipients' health-coverage status might have resulted from Obamacare.

"It is likely that the Census Bureau will decide that there is a break in series for the health insurance estimates," another agency report on the changes said. And this "break in trend" will make it very difficult to determine the impact of Obamacare, according to the Times.

The changes include more detailed questions about whether people were offered insurance at work and whether they accepted it, the Times reports. If a worker does not employer coverage, the survey asks why.

Several of the new questions were requested by the Department of Health and Human Services and the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the Times reports.

Formally known as the Bureau of the Census, the agency was created in 1903. Under the Constitution, it is charged with counting the nation's population every 10 years. Between the decades the bureau makes population estimates and projections.

Besides affecting how congressional districts are drawn, census data plays a key role in how more than $400 billion in federal and state funding is allocated every year for such services as public health, education, transportation, and neighborhood improvements.

"Census data influences decisions made from Main Street to Wall Street, in Congress and with the Federal Reserve," Farenthold told Newsmax. "Not to mention, the American people who look to, and trust, the data the government releases on our nation's unemployment, state of our economy, and health insurance coverage."

The Census Bureau operated as an independent entity within the U.S. Commerce Department, answering to the Commerce Secretary, though its director is appointed by the president. The current director is John Thompson.

But that changed in 2009, when President Barack Obama moved the bureau under the Office of Management in Budget, which falls under the purview of the White House. Thompson now answers to Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.

Republicans decried the move as stripping the autonomy of one of the government's most autonomous agencies and of politicizing the counting of Americans. 

"Any attempt by the Obama administration to circumvent the census process for their political benefit will be met with fierce opposition, as this ill-conceived proposal undermines a constitutionally obligated process that speaks to the very heart of our democracy," California Rep. Darrell Issa wrote Obama in a February 2009 letter.

The document was co-signed by North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry.

Issa is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and McHenry is one of 23 GOP members. Farenthold's panel falls under its authority.

"My subcommittee will be thoroughly investigating this issue and demanding answers from Census officials on allegations that the Census Bureau is changing the wording of survey questions used to determine our nation’s annual report on health insurance coverage," Farenthold told Newsmax.

Regarding Obamacare, the Census Bureau's changes come amid heavy criticism of the beleaguered healthcare law. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius resigned on Friday, ending a stormy five-year tenure at the helm of the agency, which was marred by the disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

Obama nominated Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the OMB's current director, to replace Sebelius. Her confirmation must be approved by the Senate, but Republicans in both chambers of Congress have continued their calls for full repeal of the healthcare law.

"It's the worst piece of legislation that's been passed in at least the last half century — and it is the single biggest step in Europeanizing our country," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Newsmax in an exclusive interview within hours of news circulating that Sebelius was quitting. "If the American people will give us the votes to do it, we intend to repeal it."

Before her resignation became public, Sebelius told Congress that 7.5 million Americans had signed up for coverage under Obamacare and that 11.7 million had been deemed eligible for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The Obamacare open-enrollment period lasted from Oct. 1 to March 31. . The period was marked by several extensions — and the White House said just days before the final deadline that those who could not enroll in plans by then through the glitch-plagued HealthCare.gov website would have until the middle of this month to do so.

Regardless, the White House has not been able to say how many of the 7.5 million Americans had no health insurance beforehand or had lost policies since the enrollment period began — a continued attack by Republicans that the administration has not been able to determine the net effect of Obamacare.

"The health insurance data reported in September of this year will not be directly comparable to what was reported last September," Kathleen Thiede Call, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, told the Times.

She was consulted by the Census Bureau on the revamped questionnaire.

“I am excited about the redesign of the survey," she added. "For the first time, we will be able to look at monthly changes in coverage over a 14- or 15-month period, which was not possible with the old version of the survey."


Comment:

I don't think it's totally necessary to rehash word-for-word what I've previously said about Obamacare and our lying politicians.

However, it's bad enough to leave out certain information that does not support your agenda, but when you monkey around with the facts and figures so it better supports that agenda, that's even worse.

Obama has said - and I quote -, "The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.  Discussion ended."  Unquote. Yes, he actually said that.  It's a new thing that liberals have started. When a controversial law is passed such as the ACA or Gay marriage (I'm not specifically against Gay marriage I just have more important issues to think about) they say, "It's here to stay. End of discussion."  I've got news for them. As long as there's one single true National Socialist out there it is NOT the end of discussion.  We'll keep working against them until the end.  We won't give up.  And even if we fail, they won't get a moment's peace because we'll be dogging them all the way.

I have a message for all liberals.  NATIONAL SOCIASLISM IS HERE TO STAY! DISCUSSION ENDED!


Dan 88!