PA Democrats Caught On Tape Accepting Bribes To Oppose Voter ID, Democrat AG Does Nothing

PA Democrats Took Bribes To Oppose Voter ID: Where Is Holder? – Pajamas Media

Pennsylvania Democrats were caught on surveillance tape reportedly accepting cash bribes in return for opposing voter ID in the Pennsylvania legislature. Gifts of Tiffany’s jewelry were also given to Democrat legislators from Philadelphia, reportedly in exchange for “NO” votes on a Pennsylvania voter ID bill that passed in 2012.

Despite this evidence, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has not charged any officials. Kane is a Democrat.

.

.
Kane’s excuse for her inaction? Racism: some of the legislators caught on tape accepting bribes were black Democrats from Philadelphia. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

In a statement to The Inquirer on Friday, Kane called the investigation poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism, saying it had targeted African Americans.

Those who favored the sting believe Kane killed a solid investigation, led by experienced prosecutor Frank G. Fina, that had ensnared several public officials and had the potential to capture more. They said they were outraged at Kane’s allegation that race had played a role in the case.

Before Kane ended the investigation, sources familiar with the inquiry said, prosecutors amassed 400 hours of audio and videotape that documented at least four city Democrats taking payments in cash or money orders, and in one case a $2,000 Tiffany bracelet.

Fine – a Pennsylvania Democrat won’t do anything about other corrupt Pennsylvania Democrats. But what about Eric Holder? After all, Holder has shown a tough-as-nails willingness to go after elected officials who accept gifts in exchange for official actions.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Verbally Bitchslaps Harry Reid, Other Democrats For Holding Ukraine Aid Hostage Over Politics


.

Leftist Corruption Update: CA Democrats Block Expulsion Of State Senator Convicted Of 8 Felonies

Culture Of Corruption… Dems Block Expulsion Of Legislator Convicted Of 8 Felonies – Flopping Aces

.

.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That adage has more application than usual in California, where Democrats hold all of the statewide offices and supermajorities in the legislature. They can enact any policies they want, with only the judicial branch offering belated checks on their power. And when I say belated, that’s literally the case with state Senator Rod Wright, whom a jury found guilty in January of committing eight felonies regarding his residency and eligibility for the office he held.

Normally, politicians who get that kind of a verdict have the decency to resign. If not, the body in which they serve would almost assuredly eject them – but not California Democrats:

Senate Democrats on Thursday blocked a move to expel their Democratic colleague Sen. Rod Wright by sending a Republican proposal to the Rules Committee, where it could permanently stall.

Sen. Steve Knight, a Republican from Palmdale, introduced a resolution to expel Wright from the Senate because a jury found him guilty of eight felonies last month for lying about living in the district he represents.

“This will be precedent-setting,” Knight said as debate on his measure was being quashed on a 21-13, mostly party-line vote.

Democrats insist that Wright does not need to resign until after sentencing, because the judge could overturn the verdict. That’s a possibility, but it’s rare. Judges almost always abide by the verdicts of juries in criminal cases, especially because they have the opportunity themselves to dismiss charges if they determine that the state has not met its burden of substantiating the charges for a jury to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the past, a jury verdict of corruption has been enough to press for resignations from the California legislature. Democrats insisted yesterday that a resignation wasn’t necessary because Wright has been stripped of his committee assignments, and – I’m not making this up – he’s on paid leave, and apparently only since Tuesday.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

How Long Until Democrats Demonize Leukemia Patient Julie Boonstra For Excoriating ObamaCare? (Video)

How Long Until Democrats Demonize Leukemia Patient Julie Boonstra For Excoriating ObamaCare? – American Power

Ms. Boonstra is featured in this ad from Americans for Prosperity, via the Weekly Standard, “Ad: Obamacare ‘Jeopardized My Health’.

.

.
Remember, when cancer survivor Edie Sundby took to the Wall Street Journal in November to slam ObamaCare after her insurance was cancelled, the devilish ghouls of the radical left, led by the despicable monsters at the Soros-backed White House mouthpiece Think Progress, viciously attacked her like wolves on an injured rabbit.

How long until the monstrous left goes after this woman, who is literally fighting to survive after the ObamaCare monstrosity eviscerated her existing healthcare coverage? Never forget: There’s no depths to which leftists won’t sink to demonize and destroy those who would dare resist their evil agenda.

More thoughts from Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, “Democrats stuck in stage 3 of ObamaCare grief?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
Man’s Back Surgery On Hold As Doctors Deny Covered California (Obamacare) Coverage – KOVR

A Sonora mechanic is in so much pain that he can barely walk, but he can’t seem to find a doctor to fix his ailing back after he and his wife switched their insurance coverage through Covered California.

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Chris Dunn reached out to CBS13 hoping we could get answers.

He needs his surgery yesterday. But instead of scheduling his date, he and his wife are navigating a confusing maze of doctors and insurance plans.

“Then it goes down, my feet are numb, like I can do this, and I can’t feel it at all,” he said.

His ailing back has him in almost constant agonizing pain. He walks with a limp and hasn’t had a good night’s sleep in months.

“I can’t sleep on my back,” he said. “I roll around all night, because I can’t lay flat. I can’t lay anywhere for more than five, 10 minutes.”

He’s still working, despite the pain. But finding a surgeon to fix his back has turned into a full-time job of its own.

“We get this coverage and go to the best doctor to fix Chris, and they tell us we’re out of network,” said his wife Tammy.

In January, they transitioned from an Anthem Blue Cross Plan over to Blue Cross Covered California (Obamacare). She says they had to switch to avoid the premium skyrocketing, but didn’t realize their provider network would be smaller.

We took their concerns to Covered California’s Dana Howard to get answers.

“A lot of people, this is the first time they’re purchasing insurance,” he said.

For privacy reasons, he couldn’t comment on the specific case, but said in general that consumers should do their research before purchasing plans.

“I would suggest they contact the plan to make sure what doctors are available to them,” he said.

Tammy says she finally found an in-network doctor, but the problems don’t end there. We looked him up using the couple’s plan info, and the Blue Cross website shows him as in-network.

But that same doctor’s officer told Tammy he won’t see patients with insurance from Covered California.

“It’s like we’re a second-class citizen,” she said. “We can’t get the coverage we need.”

For Chris, it’s another stop in a long road to the surgery he needs.

“To this point where it feels like I’m going to be in pain,” he said. “I can’t find nobody to do it.”

CBS13 wasn’t able to reach the doctor tonight, and a late-hour contact with Blue Cross didn’t get to the bottom of it, so we’re still pushing for answers.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Trey Gowdy: Democrats Want You To Believe You’re Better Off Writing Poetry Than Working For Money (Video)

Trey Gowdy: Democrats Want You To Believe You’re Better Off Writing Poetry Than Working & Making Money (Video) – Gateway Pundit

Once again, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) hit it out of the park today on FOX News. Gowdy blasted Democrats for their new rallying cry urging Americans to avoid the work trap.

“Well, how would you like to run for reelection if you were in the House and the Senate based on Obamacare with its rising premiums, worse coverage and now we’re trying to convince you that you’re better off writing poetry than you working and getting money? I certainly wouldn’t want to defend that in a midterm election… If you need any more evidence, or “smidgen” of evidence to use his word, how disastrous this health care law is, the architect doesn’t even want to implement it!“

Ouch!

Via Breitbart and Politomix:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Connecticut Democrats And Union President Given Awards By Communist Party USA At Public High School

Two Democrats And Union President Given Communist Awards At Event Held In A Public School – Gateway Pundit

The Progressives love to tout the separation of church and state, especially when it comes to prayer in public schools. But when it comes to the public schools in New Haven Connecticut, Communists seem more than welcome.

.
(Front Row Left) Former Democrat State Senator Ed Gomes, (Front Row Center) Democrat State Representative Edwin Vargas and (Front Row Right) Laurie Kennington, president of Local 34 clerical and technical workers at Yale. (Back Row Seated) John Olsen, former Communist award recipient and President emeritas Conn. AFL-CIO At the 2013 CPUSA Amistad Awards (Pic from PW/Henry Lowendorf)

.
The Bell News reports that last month two State Democratic Politicians and a Local Union President accepted awards from the Communist Party USA at an event held in a public high school:

According to an article on the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) News, People’s World, in December of 2013 a Communist award ceremony was held in a New Haven Connecticut public high school auditorium where the Democrat State Rep, Former Democrat State Senator and the local Union President all received awards:

NEW HAVEN, CONN. – From the opening video and drumming to the remarks of the awardees, songs, youth slide show and finale, an atmosphere of unity and optimism inspired the entire multi-racial audience at the 2013 People’s World Amistad Awards, held in the auditorium of Cooperative Arts and Humanities High School…

…In his closing remarks Rev. Scott Marks brought the crowd to its feet as he called for door-to-door organizing that will “move forward” the fight for jobs and other needs. “I will not go back!” he exclaimed passionately.

Marks and all the awardees praised the vision and work of the Communist Party in their communities. The event was held on the occasion of the CPUSA’s 94th anniversary.

Former state Senator Ed Gomes, a steelworker, state representative Edwin Vargas, a teacher, and Laurie Kennington, president of Local 34 clerical and technical workers at Yale all accepted large framed posters of the Amistad statue that stands in front of New Haven City Hall, cheered on by family, friends, co-workers, elected officials and union and community leaders.

Read more at The Bell News.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Democrats Passed ObamaCare For The Uninsured… And Guess What? The Uninsured Don’t Want It

America Passed ObamaCare For The Uninsured… And Guess What? They Don’t Even Want It – Independent Journal Review

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll has discovered that a mere 24% of the uninsured think Obamacare is a good idea, while 56% of the uninsured think it’ll have negative effects.

.

.
That’s a steep decline for its support in only the past three months, when polls indicated that 35% of the insured were in favor of the program. It’s a 20-point rise in the percentage of the uninsured who think it’s a bad idea, in the same time-frame.

Even more damning, 42% of the uninsured believe that the new law will negatively affect their family. Only a third shared that view in September.

It’s not just the 5.6 million Americans whose insurance has been cancelled that are against Obamacare. It’s newest opponents? The uninsured.

This spells huge trouble for the Administration, who are banking on young and healthy enrollees to counter-balance the older, sicker individuals who sign up. A Harvard University Institute of Politics poll found that only about 21% of uninsured Americans between the ages of 18-29 plan to sign up for Obamacare.

It looks like sign-ups will fall far short of the Administration’s projected 3.3 million sign-ups before the end of the year.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Vile, Leftist Hypocrisy Update: Senate Democrats Go Nuclear, Eliminate Filibusters On Obama Nominees

Reid, Democrats Trigger ‘Nuclear’ Option; Eliminate Most Filibusters On Nominees – Washington Post

The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

.

The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries.

The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, reverses nearly 225 years of precedent and dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of a power grab and suggested that they will regret their decision if Republicans regain control of the chamber.

“We’re not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer,” McConnell said. “Some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.” McConnell then addressed Democrats directly, saying: “You may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” he said.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned Democrats against the rule change on Wednesday, saying that if the GOP reclaimed the Senate majority, Republicans would further alter the rules to include Supreme Court nominees, so that Democrats could not filibuster a Republican pick for the nation’s highest court.

The vote to change the rule passed 52-48. Three Democrats – Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) – joined with 45 Republicans in opposing the measure. Levin is a longtime senator who remembers well the years when Democratic filibusters blocked nominees of Republican presidents; Manchin and Pryor come from Republican-leaning states.

Infuriated by what he sees as a pattern of obstruction and delay over President Obama’s nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the so-called “nuclear option” by proposing a motion to reconsider the nomination of Patricia Millet, one of the judicial nominees whom Republicans recently blocked by a filibuster, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Senate voted 57-40, with three abstentions, to reconsider Millett’s nomination. Several procedural votes followed. The Senate Parliamentarian, speaking through Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chamber’s president pro temp, then ruled that 60 votes are needed to cut off a filibuster and move to a final confirmation vote. Reid appealed that ruling, asking senators to decide whether it should stand.

Senators began voting about 12:15 p.m. The final vote was 52 in favor of changing the rule, 48 against.

The Democratic victory paves the way for the rapid confirmation of Millett and two other nominee to the D.C. appeals court. All have recently been stymied by GOP filibusters, amid Republican assertions that the critical appellate court simply did not need any more judges.

But the impact of the move is be more far-reaching. The means for executing this rules change – a simple-majority vote, rather than the long-standing two-thirds majority required to change the chamber’s standing rules – is more controversial than the actual move itself.

Many Senate majorities have thought about using this technical maneuver to get around centuries of parliamentary precedent, but none has done so in a unilateral move on a major change of rules or precedents. This simple-majority vote has been executed in the past to change relatively minor precedents involving how to handle amendments; for example, one such change short-circuited the number of filibusters that the minority party could deploy on nominations.

Reid has rattled his saber on the filibuster rules at least three other times in the past three years, yielding each time to a bipartisan compromise brokered by the chamber’s elder statesmen.

But no deal emerged by the time debate started Thursday morning. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the main negotiator who brokered recent deals to avert such a showdown, as well as one in 2005, met with Reid on Wednesday, but neither side reported progress.

The main protagonists for the rules change have been junior Democrats elected in the last six or seven years, who have alleged that Republicans have used the arcane filibuster rules to create a procedural logjam that has left the Senate deadlocked. Upon arriving in 2009, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said, he found that “the Senate was a graveyard for good ideas.”

As he recounted in a speech this week, Udall said, “I am sorry to say that little has changed. The digging continues.”

As envisioned earlier this week, Democrats would issue a new rule that would still allow for 60-vote-threshold filibusters on legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court.

Republicans, weary from the third rules fight this year, seemed to have adopted a resigned indifference to this latest threat, as opposed to the heated rhetoric in mid-July when the issue last flared up. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, mocked the idea that the Democrats would leave in place the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominations, in the event that a GOP nominee wins the White House in 2016.

He made clear that if that occurred, and the GOP reclaimed the Senate majority, the Republicans would then alter the rules so that Democrats could not filibuster a Republican pick for the Supreme Court. “If [Reid] changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court,” Grassley said Wednesday.

Reid’s move is a reversal of his position in 2005, when he was minority leader and fought the GOP majority’s bid to change rules on a party-line vote. A bipartisan, rump caucus led by McCain defused that effort.

At the time, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the No. 2 GOP leader and helped push the effort to eliminate filibusters on the George W. Bush White House’s judicial selections. Eight years later, McConnell, now the minority leader, has grown publicly furious over Reid’s threats to use the same maneuver.

Democrats contend that this GOP minority, with a handful of senators elected as tea party heroes, has overrun McConnell’s institutional inclinations and served as a procedural roadblock on most rudimentary things. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1967 through 2012, majority leaders had to file motions to try to break a filibuster of a judicial nominee 67 times – and 31 of those, more than 46 percent – occurred in the last five years of an Obama White House and Democratic majority.

Republicans contend that their aggressive posture is merely a natural growth from a decades-long war over the federal judiciary, noting that what prompted the 2005 rules showdown were at least 10 filibusters of GOP judicial nominees. To date, only a handful of Obama’s judicial selections have gone to a vote and been filibustered by the minority.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

FLASHBACK – 2005


.

.

Democrats To Reimburse Insurance Companies Up To 80% On Obamacare Losses (Video)

Breaking: Democrats To Reinburse Insurance Companies Up To 80% On O-Care Losses (Video) – Gateway Pundit

This must have been one of those backroom deals we heard so much about…

.

Stuffed inside the Obamacare law passed by Democrats (with no Republican votes) is a provision that will reimburse insurance companies up to 80% of their losses due to Obamacare.

Melissa Francis reported on FOX News:

“Marco Rubio has been out highlighting the fact that there is this ‘risk corridor’ where written into this law that nobody read is this idea that is insurance companies have 3% higher costs than they estimated as a result of who’s in these pools, they can recoup 50% of that money from the government, from you and me. 8% higher than what they estimated, they can recoup 80%! …This bailout of the insurance companies is the next big thing we’ll all be talking about.”

And, here we thought Democrats hated insurance companies.

.

.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is reportedly offering legislation that would repeal the provision altogether, arguing it raises the possibility of an insurance industry “bailout.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

President Obama has no shame

Donald Douglas links a great piece on our president’s Truth Deficit Disorder

At the San Diego Union-Tribune, “President Obama’s obnoxious bait-and-switch“:

The last time we had a Democratic president who wanted to overhaul the entire U.S. health care system, his measure never even got out of a single congressional committee.

Why? Because Bill Clinton had no compelling response to an insurance-industry ad campaign in which “Harry and Louise” talked about the president’s proposal and the likelihood it would force them to lose their current health coverage and choose from a handful of government-approved options.

The ad campaign was so potent because it understood that most Americans are satisfied with their health coverage — and thus fear change.

The blowback Democrats faced because of the Clinton health initiative led to a Republican takeover of the House in November 1994 for the first time in nearly a half-century.

Barack Obama knew this history. So when he became president in January 2009 and began his push for a similarly ambitious overhaul of U.S. health care, he told people over and over that if they liked their health plan, they could keep it. There were no caveats. No strings attached. If you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.

It’s quite possible that the president said this so many times that he came to believe it. But it is a matter of fact that three months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, the Obama administration issued rules that will force the cancellation of vast numbers of policies. This is from the administration’s own words in the Federal Register: “The Departments’ midrange estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013.”

So three years and four months ago, the Obama administration anticipated that some 90 million Americans would be forced to change their coverage. Yet as recently as last month, the president once again said, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”

This is White House dishonesty on an epic scale…

Indeed it is, but that is the leftist way, and President Obama is an ideologue, Clinton was a politician. And, the Democrats in 2010 were dead set on shoving this law down our throats. Those famed harry and Louise ads would not have helped in 2010. No amount of public outcry against Obamacare worked. No polls showing the people did not want Obamacare worked either. The Left saw an opportunity, and took it. That is the problem with Democrats today isn’t it? They have moved so far Left that they are no longer even Liberals, they are Leftists.

 

Suddenly, Democrats Up For Reelection Join Calls By Republicans To Delay ObamaCare Mandate

Dems Join Call To Delay ObamaCare Mandate Amid Website Failures – Fox News

Several Democratic senators are calling on the Obama administration to delay enforcement of the health care law’s individual mandate, joining their Republican colleagues in saying it would be unfair to penalize Americans for failing to buy insurance when the primary sign-up website doesn’t work.

.
……….

The Democratic dominoes began to fall quickly Wednesday, after Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., circulated a letter urging President Obama to extend enrollment beyond March 31, 2014.

Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., in a statement released late Wednesday, said: “I believe, given the technical issues, it makes sense to extend the time for people to sign up.”

Shaheen and several moderate Democrats supporting her, including Pryor, are up for re-election in 2014, and no doubt taking note of the widespread discontent with the launch of HealthCare.gov.

But political motivation aside, the sudden support from moderate Democrats for delaying the mandate threatens to force President Obama’s hand.

Republicans are already crafting bills to delay the requirement on individuals to buy health insurance. The GOP has the numbers to pass such a proposal in the House; with 15 Democrats, they might be able to muscle something through in the Senate.

Then Obama would have to decide whether to veto.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who is not up for election next year, is working on a bill that would delay the IRS penalty for one year for anyone who does not get insurance.

This comes as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., drafts a separate bill to delay the requirement until the system has been certified as working for six straight months.

The White House, while defending the health care law and vowing to fix the problems with the website, has not explicitly ruled out the possibility of delaying the individual mandate. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, also backed Shaheen’s call in a written statement Wednesday.

“I have repeatedly said this law is not perfect and have proposed changes to make it work for Alaska families and small businesses,” he said. “Given the recent website issues, I also support extending open enrollment season. I want to work with the administration to ensure that individuals are not unfairly penalized if technical issues with the website continue.”

Other Democratic senators that spoke out in support of Sheehan Wednesday include Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Shaheen, in her letter to Obama wrote: “As website glitches persist, we are losing valuable time to educate and enroll people in insurance plans. I also fear that people that have tried, and failed, to enroll online may become frustrated and not return to the website to try again at a later date. … Allowing extra time for consumers is critically important so they have the opportunity to become familiar with the website, survey their options and enroll.”

Other Democrats were less gentle in their complaints.

“The president should man up, let us know who was responsible, who was in charge here and fire them,” Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., said.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said “somebody ought to get fired.”

Editorial pages in newspapers across America have been similarly rough on the roll-out, and the law itself.

Obama’s hometown newspaper, The Chicago Tribune, wrote: “The bugs aren’t just in the software. They’re in the law itself.”

Amid the complaints, the administration says its newly hired team of specialists is working around the clock to fix the site. Officials also met Wednesday with top insurance industry executives.

The meeting included representatives from insurance giants like Humana, Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

A statement from America’s Health Insurance Plans described it as a “positive and productive meeting” that allowed CEOs to give an “on-the-ground perspective of how open enrollment is proceeding,” including the “ongoing technical challenges.”

Not all Democrats are joining the call for a delay.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi urged the administration to fix the problems but stick to the current set of deadlines.

Some analysts claimed that individuals would have to sign up by mid-February in order to be registered by the end of March and avoid the IRS penalty. But a White House official said Wednesday that is not the case, and the deadline continues to be March 31.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ed Schultz thinks caller is going to criticize Obama Care, meltdown ensues

Here is the audio

A lot of people are linking this story but not so many are understanding what Schultz is actually doing. Yes, he is a rude asshole, yes he is a bombastic buffoon, we all know that. But, what upsets Schultz is that he thinks the caller might criticize Obama Care. Check the transcript out

“I just called to disagree with you about Democrats caring about veterans. I’m a retired veteran with 23 years of service and I don’t know if you know it, but 1 October, 171,000 of us were kicked off our health care. And those ‘evil Republicans,’ as you like to call them, passed a bill in June and it’s been sitting in the Senate and Reid won’t bring it up,” the 23-year veteran began.

At this point Schultz sees a likely legitimate criticism of Obama Care. And Schultz is not going to risk allowing his Left-Wing audience to hear anything negative about President Obama’s “signature legislation. So, as many Libs do, they attack, and change the subject. In this case Schultz looks to change the subject to the shutdown, which is NOT what the caller was talking about.

“First of all, you have, uh, your facts wrong,” Schultz responded, changing the subject and hollering over the caller when he tried to respond. “I’m not going to freaking argue with you, Russell. You’re full of crap, okay? You’re full of it. The government shutdown hurt the veterans. Is that wrong or right?”

“It hasn’t hurt us yet,” Russell said.

Schultz then vowed to “break your idiot argument down piece by piece!”

Schultz gives the caller almost no opportunity to speak, explain himself, or elaborate after this. Schultz freaks out because he fears the truth getting to the ears of his audience. So, Schultz attacks

The caller again reiterated that he is one of the 171,000 retired veterans who lost their benefits, a move that was supposedly intended to “reduce the cost of providing health care to military retirees.” The Democrats refuse to consider the Republican’s proposal to address the problem, he said. The vet also said he didn’t retire from the military for Obamacare.

“You have your facts wrong,” Schultz repeated, without actually explaining what facts were wrong. “You know what, you need a right-wing talker.”

And, again, Schultz goes back to the “Republicans shut down the government” defense, even though he knows what the caller is talking about is not related to the shut down at all.  The caller even says specifically he is not calling about the shutdown. All Schultz sees is the possibility his listeners might here an Obama Care horror story. In short, Schultz is willing to lie, and shut off a caller to defend Obama Care even though is hurting the very people Schultz claims to fight for.

Here is what the caller WAS actually talking about

According to a recent article by Tom Philpott, Defense officials are expected to soon announce that military retirees and their dependents that live more than 40 miles from a military treatment facility or BRAC (base closure) site will lose access to TRICARE Prime as early as next April.

This move could force as many as 171,000 retirees to shift to TRICARE Standard, which would mean an increase in out-of-pocket costs – especially those with special needs dependents or other chronic health issues.

It is important to note that active duty members and their families won’t be impacted. However, military retirees and their families are not the only ones to be hit by the move. In his article, Philpott points out that some drilling Guard and reserve members enrolled in TRICARE Reserve could also see increases in health costs.

In fairness, these cuts are not, as far as I can tell due to Obama Care

These changes have been in the works for some time. In fact, the new TRICARE support contracts were originally drafted in 2007 (during the Bush administration). These contracts were designed to reduce the cost of providing health care to military retirees by constricting Prime service areas.

Philpott reports that “Congress is not expected to block this long-standing plan to tighten access to Prime if the intent is to hold down costs.  Doing so likely would require lawmakers to find equivalent budget savings elsewhere.”

Many may find it disturbing that Defense officials delayed announcing this TRICARE change until after the election out of concern that it could be used by politicians.

The first round of Prime service changes is “tentatively” planned to go into effect in the TRICARE West region on April 1. The North and South regions will see the plan implemented by October 1, 2013.

Of course, Schultz was not going to even risk allowing a caller to tell their story if it did not match the Leftist narrative. So, apparently the Left wants to silence us even if we are NOT going to criticize Obama, or his health care fiasco. 

I guess the rules for trying to debate Schultz are pretty simple

Republicans are bad and always to blame.

Do not say anything negative about Obama Care, even if what you are talking about has nada to do with Obama Care.

Agree with Ed and the Leftist narrative or shut the Hell up!

 

Hey kids, who is ready for some race pimpin’!

And not just any old race pimpin’ either! Oh no, we have none other than Je$$e Jack$on who thinks the Confederacy is still around.

Screen-shot-2013-10-08-at-7.30.03-PM

Is it me, or are Democrats playing the Confederacy Card a lot recently? Really showing their desperation now. They are like a bunch of vampires locked out of a blood bank as the sun is rising.

Clean? What the hell would Harry Reid know about clean?

Oh those Democrats. they love to control the language of political debate. And by control the language, I do not mean control the debate by substance, or by the merit of their ideology. I mean they wish to inject emotionalism into the debate by misusing words. fair, equal, choice, bipartisan, partisan, are among the words Democrats have used to control debate in recent  times. They basically use these words over, and over, and again to convince Americans that they are best served if Democrats get what they want.

In the current government shutdown, Democrats like Harry Reid keep using the word “clean” as in those damned dirt Republicans who eat babies, and push old ladies off cliffs need to pass a “clean” funding bill. Clean? What does that even mean? Well, trust me when I say that Reid and his posse define clean as “we get everything we want and those Republicans can suck it!” This as much like Democrats misuse the words partisan and bipartisan. Those words have meanings, but Democrats spin those words to mean  “we get everything we want and those Republicans can suck it!”

Of course, Democrats have been bastardizing the meanings of words for a long time because they must lie, and lie to you and me to get their way. Honesty? PLEASE! Democrats only want more, as in more of our money, more of our liberties, and MORE control! And if they have to tell the same lie a thousands of times, they will. And if you do not believe me, I guess you still think you can keep your health coverage and doctor too!

 

The Democrats war on kids with cancer UPDATED! Harry Reid’s Cranial Rectal issues

Video via Lonely Conservative 

Good for Dana Bash for asking the question. Reid’s answer exposes his, and his fellow Democrats rank arrogance. Talk about an insensitive response. Other people have problems too, so according to Senator Weasel Dick, kids with cancer can go without help so the Democrats can play politics, and finish forcing Obama Care on people who never wanted it.

Exit question: Is there anything Democrats will not do to gain total control of our lives?

UPDATE! Smitty notes something i should have caught at 49 seconds into the video asks this

0:49 What right do they have to pick and choose what part of government’s going to be funded?

And the Constitution says:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So if the House, which has remained oddly stuck in size since 1910, and thus may not represent the people with optimal fidelity, originates a bill, it’s kind of odd that the Dim Bulb from Vegas not know from whence that right originates.

OUCH!

Leftist Democrats In California Attempting To Shield Illegals From Deportation

California Lawmakers Move To Shield Illegal Immigrants From Deportation – Fox News

Police in California would be prohibited from helping deport some illegal immigrants under a bill being considered by Gov. Jerry Brown, in a proposed change some say would violate federal law.

.

The so-called Trust Act would bar police from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on a variety of cases. Proponents say the bill is narrowly focused and only applies to those illegal immigrants arrested for minor crimes.

Prosecutors and sheriffs disagree.

“If you or I were victimized by someone stealing our identity, selling drugs in our community, burglarizing our home or embezzling our money, that’s okay? That’s a minor crime under this bill,” complained Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle. “If this law passes, we will not be able to put holds on people who have previously been deported. So someone could be deported one, two, three, four – 10 times and that would not be cause for us to put a hold on them.”

The California District Attorneys Association and the California Sheriffs’ Association oppose the law, in part because it also conflicts with federal statutes.

“It makes no sense and is unconstitutional,” said former ICE Director Julie Myers Wood. “The federal government has sole authority to enforce immigration law. In this instance California is telling the feds what you can and cannot do.”

Wood and others find it ironic, considering a dozen California cities boycotted Arizona when it challenged the supremacy of federal authority in immigration enforcement. This time, however, California officials don’t seem to mind challenging that authority.

“We’re asking Governor Jerry Brown to sign the Trust Act that will allow local police agencies to not honor the immigration detainer,” said Carlos Montes, of the Southern California Immigration Coalition. “We need to stop implementing the Secure Communities program that is causing the detention and deportation of thousands of our community.”

Under the Secure Communities program, whenever a suspect is booked in jail, their fingerprints go through an immigration database. If in the U.S. illegally, ICE can put a hold or detainer on the inmate so they’re deported. Under the Trust Act, police would be under no obligation to honor that detainer for dozens of crimes.

While supporters say the law is designed to protect otherwise innocent illegal immigrants charged with misdemeanor crimes, Myers-Wood says the proposed law applies largely only to those convicted of crimes like child abuse and assault, not those released pending charges. It is not uncommon for suspects to be released on bond prior to a preliminary hearing and formal charges. Critics say that window, then, allows illegal immigrant suspects to go free. And because many are unlikely not show up for their next court appearance, the system could allow dangerous criminals to re-offend.

“You’re going to have a high likelihood of individuals, who pose a significant public safety risk who are released into the community for some length of time without no guarantee ICE can put on a detainer at the time of a probable cause hearing,” said Myers-Wood. “That’s a huge loophole.”

Others say the change appears to violate federal law – a charge dozens of California officials made when Arizona passed SB1070, which allowed local police to obtain the immigration status of suspects.

Under federal code 8 1373(a), a state “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status… of any individual.”

Attorneys for law enforcement believe the Trust Act violates that law. California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a former San Francisco district attorney, disagrees. She says the law is discretionary, not mandatory.

Brown has until Oct. 13 to sign or veto the bill.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* The IRS Hit List Democrats Don’t Want You To See


National Review media editor Eliana Johnson on new evidence that proves the government targeted conservative groups. Plus, when did Treasury learn of the abuse?

.

………………………Click on image above to watch video.

.

Names Of Vile Democrats On House Committee Who Walked Out On Benghazi Victims’ Family Members

Names Of Democrats On House Oversight Committee Who Walked Out On Benghazi Victim Family Members – Fire Andrea Mitchell

The slimy Democrats on the House Oversight Committee shamelessly walked out during testimony of Benghazi victim family members Patricia Smith is the mother of Sean Smith and Charles Woods is the father of Ty Woods. Here are the names of the disgusting Democrats who make up the House Oversight Committee and who should be ashamed of themselves:

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. John Tierney (MA-6)
Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-1)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-9)
Rep. Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Rep. Gerald Connolly (VA-11)
Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-2)
Rep. Tammy Duckworth (IL-8)
Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7)
Rep. Peter Welch (VT)
Rep. Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Rep. Steve Horsford (NV-4)
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-1)

.

Here is that those slimy Democrats missed.

Pat Smith (mother of Sean Smith)

.

.
All of these filthy Democrats are in safe districts anyway, so they will suffer no backlash at all over their absolutely disgusting behavior. According to a commenter, Elijah Cummings and Jackie Speier did not walkout like the rest of the pond scum on this list.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Spitting On Their Graves: Democrats Leave Benghazi Hearing Before Testimony From Families Of Victims

Spitting On Their Graves: Democrats Leave Benghazi Hearing Before Testimony From Families Of Victims – Townhall

.

During the second portion of a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing about Benghazi Thursday on Capitol Hill, the majority of Democrats on the Committee left the room and refused to listen to the testimony of Patricia Smith and Charles Woods. Ms. Smith is the mother of Sean Smith, an information management officer killed in the 9/11 Benghazi attack. Charles Woods is the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was also killed.

The far side of the room, shown empty in the photo, belongs to the Democrats. The only Democrats who stayed were Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Rep. Jackie Speier.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.