Federal Court Deals Blow To President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow To President Obama’s Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

Administration officials had criticized that ruling, and immigrant-rights advocates had called Judge Hanen an activist bent on punishing immigrants. But Tuesday’s ruling upholds his injunction, giving some vindication to the judge.

It also could mean Mr. Obama will have to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to implement his amnesty before the end of his term.

In the 2-1 decision, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod ruled in favor of Texas, finding that the state would suffer an injury from having to deliver services to the illegal immigrants granted legal status, and ruling that it was a major enough policy that the president should have sent it through the usual rule-making process.

“DAPA modifies substantive rights and interests – conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law,” the judges wrote.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying he would have left the fight over immigration policy to the White House and Congress, saying Mr. Obama should have broad discretion to decide who gets deported and how he goes about that.

Just Higginson also said the fight was a political battle, not a legal one

“The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs: hundreds of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, attorneys general, governors, and state legislators – not to mention 185 members of Congress, 15 states and the District of Columbia on the one hand, and 113 members of Congress and 26 states on the other,” he wrote.

.

.

Ready For Another Obamacare Price Hike? (David Catron)

Ready For Another Obamacare Price Hike? – David Catron

.
………..

.
In July of 2009, as the Obamacare debate was heating up, Gallup published a survey indicating that 83 percent of Americans wanted health care reform to make their health insurance more affordable. Now, more than five years after the President’s “signature domestic achievement” was passed, health insurance premiums are higher than ever. And it’s obvious that Obamacare is a major driver of the increase. The Wall Street Journal reports that insurers are proposing rate increases ranging from 25 to 51 percent for 2016. Why? “All of them cite high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act.”

Obamacare apologists suggest different causes, of course. Jonathan Cohn writes, “One reason could be the normal and predictable competition among insurance plans jostling for market share.” Cohn’s grasp of economics is so tenuous that he doesn’t know insurers compete for market share by reducing premiums. He also connects the increases to anxiety about that bête noire of Obamacarians everywhere, King v. Burwell: “If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs… millions will drop their coverage because they will no longer be able to afford it.” Cohn evidently thinks insurers will respond by making insurance even less affordable.

The real reason for the proposed increases is that insurers now have real data on real Obamacare enrollees rather than implausible projections from the Obama administration. And this new information makes it clear that they’ll lose their shirts if they sell coverage at anything resembling 2015 rates. Many young, healthy individuals have refused to buy pricy Obamacare coverage, leaving insurance carriers with sluggish premium streams out of which to pay the large dollar claims coming in from seriously ill patients willing to buy coverage regardless of cost. This dynamic has already caused a number of health insurers to incur huge losses.

Obviously, not even an evil insurance company can stay in business if it consistently loses large amounts of money. Earlier this month, Assurant Health announced that losses related to Obamacare are causing it to close its doors. Western Journalism reports, “The company and industry watchers blamed its losses directly on the impact of Obamacare… Assurant lost $63.7 million in 2014. The insurer raised its rates by 20 percent in 2015, in hopes of returning to profitability, but lost between $80 to $90 million during the first quarter of this year.” The company has been in business for 123 years and provides coverage for 1 million people.

Assurant is based in Wisconsin, but insurers all across the country are attempting to survive the same perverse incentives that finally undid that venerable company. The Journal lists proposed increases by companies offering plans through exchanges in Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington state. And many of these companies are already losing huge amounts of money: “BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee… lost $141 million from exchange-sold plans, stemming largely from a small number of sick enrollees.” It is asking for a 36.3 percent rate increase.

All of which suggests that the “premium stabilization” safeguards ostensibly meant to prevent Obamacare from sending the health insurance industry into a death spiral aren’t working. The “reinsurance program,” as Philip Klein explains at the Washington Examiner, “slaps fees on insurance policies and uses the revenue to funnel payments to insurers to compensate them for taking on individuals with a high-risk profile.” “Risk corridors” are a corporate redistribution scheme whereby the government uses the profits of some insurers to offset the losses of others. But, as Klein points out, both programs will be gone after 2016.

If disasters like Assurant and BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee are occurring while these programs remain in place, what will happen when they’re gone? Well, we’ll have more insurers proposing hair-raising rate increases in order to avoid the fate of Assurant. But, not to worry, says Charles Gaba at HealthInsurance.org, upon whom the erstwhile “Citizen Cohn” rather desperately relies upon as the voice of reason: “These requested rate changes are being submitted to the state insurance commissioner’s office… and in most states either the commissioner or some other regulatory body has to either approve the requests or deny them.”

In other words, some state bureaucrat may simply deny the insurance company’s rate request and impose a more “appropriate” premium. This means that, in New Mexico, Health Care Service Corp. may get a mere 25 percent increase rather than the 51 percent it has proposed. In Tennessee, Blue Cross may get only 20 percent rather than the requested 36.3 percent increase. In Maryland, the state bureaucrats may decide that, instead of a 30.4 percent increase, Blue Shield may only get 18 percent. All of these outcomes have one thing in common: The rate goes up by double digits. That means you pay a higher premium no matter how it turns out.

In other words, in the best case scenario, the your health insurance premiums are going up. And this is not simply because Obamacare has been unable to accomplish the main thing most Americans wanted from health reform in first place – more affordable medical care. Barack Obama’s “signature domestic achievement” is actually making health care less affordable. Good job, Mr. President. Please use the rest of your term perfecting your chip shot.

.

.

Putrid Leftist Alan Grayson Tweets ‘F*** The Police’ Photo

Rep. Alan Grayson Tweets Photo With ‘F*** The Police’ Graffiti – Big Government

.

.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) posted a tweet saying he opposes the militarization of police forces. His message contained a profanity. A photo attached to the tweet showed police officers wearing gas masks and holding weapons, standing next to a mailbox with graffiti that said, “F*** The Police.”

.

.
As he considers a run for the U.S. Senate in 2016, Grayson is no stranger to controversy. He is currently engaged in battles with both the leadership of his party, who have thrown their support in the Senate race behind Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-FL), and with his estranged wife and mother of his five children, who he is seeking to cut off from his estimated $26 million fortune.

Earlier this month, Grayson launched a profanity-laden tirade at another Florida reporter, saying that his story was s “a whole ‘nother level of bullsh**” and asking him if he was “some kind of sh**ing robot” who went around “sh***ing on people.”

.

.

More Proof That Leftists Are Dumber Than Dirt… As If We Needed More

California To Force Porn Actresses To Wear Safety Goggles On Set – Downtrend

.

.
In their never ending quest to control all aspects of life with silly regulations, the liberal ninnies that run California have come up with a long list of safety rules for porno film shoots. Among other things, they want to require actors and actresses to wear safety goggles while performing sex scenes. It would seem as if the state has become every adult in the movie A Christmas Story: “You’ll shoot your eye out, kid.”

The California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board released a 21-page proposal of porno regulations. If you find it funny that the state is pushing this volume of rules for porn shoots, it’s even more hilarious that they spent 5-years of hearings and research to come up with this stuff.

One of the big recommendations is to make condom use mandatory for all filmed sex scenes, something Los Angles passed into law recently. As unenforceable as that is, there’s even more hard-to-regulate regulations:

No one on a porn set would be allowed to pick up broken glass with their hands. They’d have to use a broom and dust pan.

Porn actors would not be allowed to share razors or any personal grooming devices.

Porn sets would have to be covered in plastic protective coverings capable of keeping the area safe from contamination.

There’s a set of rules regarding the cleaning of dildos.

Porn producers would have to provide soap to the actors that is not irritating.

Anyone handling clothing, including the actors, must wear latex gloves.

And the best of the bunch: If there is to be a facial “money shot” actors and actresses would have to wear eye protection. In fact, the facial as we know it would be outlawed by these regulations:

6. Barrier protection for the eyes, skin, mouth, and mucous membranes. The employer shall not permit ejaculation onto the employee’s eyes, non-intact skin, mouth or other mucous membranes.

In addition to this stuff, there are pages and pages of regulations requiring that porn producers provide vaccinations, laundry service, and my favorite: that they post warning signs on the set. It’s not real clear what these warning signs should be, but I imagine “Caution: Splash Zone” would do the trick.

In addition, there are 10 different regulations related to condom use, including mandatory lubricant. If a porn actor changes the point of entry, he must then remove the condom and put on a new one.

Cal/OSHA is holding public hearings on their massive porn regulation proposal and will soon make a decision on whether to implement these rules or not. This being California, it’s a given that they will vote in favor of unrealistic unenforceable regulations.

I think it will be hilarious to see a porno shot with all of these rules in place: the walls and furniture are covered in plastic drop cloths, the actor and actress are wearing latex gloves and safety goggles, every time they switch positions the actor stops to apply a new condom and lubricant, when it’s over crew members in biohazard suits rush in to quickly decontaminate the set. It should be pretty hot.

.

.

Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? (Lord Christopher Monckton)

Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? – Lord Christopher Monckton

.

.
The devil, in the traditional theology of the Christian Church, is a fallen angel: the very personification and embodiment of evil. Perhaps the most frequent of the many descriptions of the devil is that he is the father of lies.

Most references to the devil in the Bible mention deceit as his hallmark. John 8:44, for instance, describes the devil thus: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

One who is “of the devil,” therefore, is one who is by nature and habit deceitful, because there is no truth in him.

Now, it has become apparent that the global totalitarian hard left, led by Mr. Obama, no longer make any pretense of speaking the truth about any of its favorite political topics.

Two of these topics are currently in the news: so-called “gay” so-called “marriage,” for which the once-Christian people of Ireland have recently and shamefully voted, and so-called “catastrophic” so-called “manmade” so-called “global” so-called “warming,” about which Mr. Obama last week preached a whining, heavily touted and in every material respect deceitful commencement sermon to Coast Guard cadets.

Even the names of these two topics are lies. There is nothing in the least bit merry about homosexuality, and marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman, not of two of one or two of the other.

Likewise, there has been no increase in the planet’s average temperature for 18 years and five months; the rate of warming since we first might have influenced it in 1950 is far from catastrophic; no one knows what fraction of it is manmade; and it is not global, for – to take one example – there has been no warming of the Antarctic continent since the satellites began measuring temperatures there in 1979.

Why does speaking the truth about political subjects such as these matter? The reason is that the lies do real harm. They kill people.

Take homosexuality. Why does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong? Because it spreads disease and death, as Romans 1:26-27 makes explicit: “… for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

On the epidemiological evidence – evidence that is often discussed with concern even in the “gay” journals – promiscuous male homosexuality will shorten the life of its average practitioner by about the same period as smoking: at least a decade and, in some cases, two. It is not a lifestyle but a deathstyle.

You can bet the ranch on the fact that not once was the well-established and repeatedly proven link between homosexuality, morbidity and mortality mentioned in any of the Marxstream media during the apology for a debate that led to the Irish referendum.

The hard left is the first to wax lyrical about the evil tobacco corporations that tried to pretend smoking is not dangerous. Yet they are tellingly silent about the fact that the “gay” deathstyle of which they are the chief political advocates is every bit as dangerous as smoking.

The result – I speak with feeling, because it happened to one close to me – is that people who see the state giving recognition and even promotion to what was once outlawed are drawn into becoming “gay” because they are not told how dangerous homosexuality is to them.

It is our Christian duty to love homosexuals. Yet it is no less our duty to love those who, foolishly trusting in the state and the law as the arbiters of morals, are lured by them into a misery that is a sin precisely because it leads in so very many cases to disease and even to death. It is a sin not because some half-crazed desert prophet said so many thousands of years ago but – like all sins – because of the deadly harm it causes.

The law now says that smoking must not be advertised or promoted and that anyone who buys a pack of cigarettes will have to read an in-your-face warning on the packet about the disease and death that smoking causes.

Yet the left, in advocating, promoting and now legalizing “gay” “marriage,” is deceitfully concealing the truth about the medical consequences of homosexuality. So much so that when I recently and mildly suggested to an otherwise quite sane and sensible friend that homosexuality is at least as medically dangerous as smoking and that people should surely be given as fair a warning of that fact as they are of the dangers of smoking, he said: “That may be true, but no sane person would say so.”

So much more politically “correct,” perhaps, just to let them infect and kill each other. Well, like it or not, that is not the Christian way. We should warn people fairly of the danger of promiscuous homosexuality, just as we warn smokers, so that they understand what they are letting themselves in for. Then, and only then, can they make a mature, informed choice.

What, you may ask, is all this to do with “global” “warming”? Well, one of the most frequent of the lying smears of the princes of deceit on the extreme left is to compare those of us who speak out against the monstrous exaggerations and outright falsehoods of the promoters and advocates of “catastrophic” “anthropogenic” “global” “warming” with the paid shills for the tobacco corporations who, for decades, tried to suppress or belittle the evidence that smoking kills.

Which brings us to Mr. Obama’s speech to the Coast Guard Academy about the weather. Even by his remarkably low standards, it was a dreadful speech. For a start, since this is a political hot potato, it was not an appropriate subject for the commander in chief to give to any branch of the nation’s defense forces. By iron convention, real presidents don’t make partisan political speeches. Just one more item of evidence, you may well think, that Mr. Obama is not a real president, just like BO’s BS WH HI ID (about which no one has done anything yet).

Seldom have I seen so many half-truths, untruths and outright lies crammed into a single speech. For a line-by-line, lie-by-lie analysis, follow this link to my detailed analysis at Wattsupwiththat.com, the world’s most visited climate website, run by a real weatherman.

Why are the climate lies of Mr. Obama and his fellow Marxists so serious? Because the cheapest and most reliable sources of electric and of motive power are coal and oil respectively. The fuel and power price hikes that have occurred solely because of these lies are already killing people.

In Britain, around 20-30,000 more people die in the winter months than at other times of year: further proof that it is cold, not warmth, that kills. In just one recent cold winter, there were 7,000 additional excess winter deaths. The extra deaths occurred not so much because the weather was cold as because their homes were cold. They could not afford to heat them.

Imagine how many more are dying worldwide because money that might have been usefully spent on giving them fossil-fuel power is being squandered on making non-existent “global” “warming” go away.

With that background, let us address the question of whether Mr. Obama and the “gay”-promoting, catastrophist hard left are, to use St. John’s phrase, “of the devil.”

The charitable conclusion is that they are of the devil, that they are under the controlling influence of the father of lies, that they are his unwitting or unwilling mouthpieces.

For if that be not the case, Mr. Obama and others like him who utter the wicked falsehoods on the basis of which they promote such fatal abominations as “gay” “marriage” and “catastrophic” “manmade” “global” “warming” are deliberately, willfully telling lies – lies that kill.

On the evidence, they are certainly not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So far are they from the truth, so many are the deaths their interminable and often gross lies cause, that it is surely kinder to grant them the Hitler defense – that they are not in control of themselves either because they are collectively mad or because they are individually of the devil.

.

.

UPDATE! Great News! My father is being released from hospital today

All his tests were OK, the fluid in his lungs is pretty much gone, and they are cutting him loose, so, while I wait for the call to go pick him up, back to posting about things like Hillarys’ bubble

At McClatchy:

CEDAR FALLS, IOWA — Here’s how Hillary Clinton campaigned for president this week: She took a private 15-minute tour of a bike shop that had closed for her visit. She spoke to four small business owners chosen by her staff in front of an audience of 20, also chosen by her staff. She answered a few questions from the media following weeks of silence.

And after a little more than an hour, Clinton was off, whisked away by aides and Secret Service agents, into a minivan and on to the next event.

Members of the public who wanted to go inside the building to support her, oppose her or merely ask a question of her were left outside on an unseasonably cool Iowa day. Most didn’t bother showing up.

“I am troubled that so far in this caucus cycle she hasn’t had any public town halls,” said Chris Schwartz, a liberal activist from Waterloo, as he stood outside the bike store hoping to talk to Clinton about trade. “If she had a public town hall then we wouldn’t be out here. We would much rather be in there engaging with her.”

Welcome to Hillary Clinton 2.0. Mindful of her defeat by Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton has embraced a new strategy – one that so far does not include town-hall meetings and campaign rallies, media interviews, even public events.

Instead, she holds small controlled events with a handful of potential voters in homes, businesses and schools. She repeats many of the same lines (“I want to be your champion” is a favorite), participants are handpicked by her staff or the event host, and topics are dictated by her campaign.

Brent Johnson, 35, the owner of Bike Tech, said Clinton campaign staffers walked into the shop a week earlier and asked him if he’d be interested in hosting an event. He and the three roundtable participants were on a conference call with the campaign the day before to hear Clinton’s “basic talking points” about helping small businesses. A campaign aide says they found guests through the small business community.

Well, gee, Hillary seen as distant, snobbish, detached, out of touch, and elitist? Who could have predicted that? OK, everybody could have of course. She has zero personality, a grating voice, and has no ability to connect with anyone outside of empty talking points. 

*VIDEOS* 2015 Southern Republican Leadership Conference Featuring Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, And Scott Walker



.

.

.

.

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

Related article:

.
Republicans Pick Favorite Presidential Hopeful In Straw Poll – CBS News

.

.
After three days of speeches at the conservative cattle call that is the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC), one presidential candidate stood out in an already crowded Republican field of hopefuls: neurologist-turned-politician Dr. Ben Carson.

Carson, who announced his candidacy for the White House earlier this month, emerged victorious at the SRLC’s closing straw poll, drawing just over a quarter of the votes.

Considered an early indicator of southern primary voter support, the conference straw poll is also the first in the election cycle. A win in this contest, however, does not always guarantee a strong showing in Republican primaries: In the 2011 straw poll, for example, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul won by a margin of nearly 15 percentage points over former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

At this year’s SRLC, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker finished in second place, currying favor with just over 20 percent of the crowd. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed with 16.6 percent of votes. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in fourth at 5.3 percent, with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry trailing close behind with 5 percent of votes.

The conference kicked off Thursday in Oklahoma City with numerous conservative superstars on its lineup. Though several senators – and likely presidential candidates – were scheduled to speak, some were not in attendance because of Friday’s prolonged Senate session. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio both addressed the Republican crowd via taped messages, along with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

About 1,500 eligible voters from across 25 southern states took part in the conservative confab, according to event organizers. Just under two-thirds of the registered attendees voted in the straw poll.

Full SRLC straw poll results:

Dr. Ben Carson: 25.4%
Gov. Scott Walker: 20.5%
Sen. Ted Cruz: 16.6%
Gov. Chris Christie: 5.3%
Gov. Rick Perry: 5.0%
Gov. Jeb Bush: 4.9%
Sen. Rand Paul: 4.1%
Sen. Marco Rubio: 4.1%
Gov. Bobby Jindal: 4.1%
Carly Fiorina: 2.7%
Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2.7%
Sen. Rick Santorum: 1.9%
Donald Trump: 1.2%
Mark Everson: 0.8%
Sen. Lindsey Graham: 0.5%
Gov. John Kasich: 0.2%
Gov. Jim Gilmore: 0.0%

.

.