Harry Reid: All Obamacare horror stories are lies!

That is right, according to Harry Reid, ALL Obamacare horror stories are lies! All those stories about people that got their insurance cancelled, lies. All those stories about increases in premiums, lies. All those stories about loosing your doctor and your treatments, lies. Hey America, you are all just a bunch of HATERS and LIARS according to Harry Reid.

He just can't imagine, in his safe bubble of entitled politician privileges that regular folks actual have an issue with being denied care, denied their doctors and being denied a policy due to the law that we just had "to pass in order to see what was in it". What was it the President said? "If you like your plan you can keep your plan, period!" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period!". When that turned out to just not be so, instead of an "oops, sorry", we got "it was a junk plan anyway, not a real plan". Well it was real enough for those folks that had them and were paying on them. Now that the exchanges are a disaster and the new plans are crap, as the reality of Obamacare comes to light, Harry says you are all just lying liars.

P.S. In case you all didn't know, according to Harry, all of these EVIL lies are being financed by those EVIL Koch brothers! Lets ignore all of the millions and millions of dollars that Soros spends on left wing policies and politics, no, let us instead focus on the drips of money that come from the Koch brothers. Harry, you are either too ignorant to have your job or a lying crook. Which is it?

Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?

This is an older video but still funny and still on point.

[Wrap up of segment on getting out of jury duty.]
Diane Sawyer: "You know, I wanted to sit on a jury once and I was taken off the jury. And the judge said to me, 'Can, you know, can you tell the truth and be fair?' And I said, 'That's what journalists do.' And everybody in the courtroom laughed. It was the most hurtful moment I think I've ever had.

Short answer: Sometimes the truth hurts.

I find it quite funny that she does not understand why everyone laughed! They really are that clueless...

Video: Oooh Child by The Five Stairsteps

Great song...

Branco Cartoon – What Difference Does it Make?

by A.F. Branco

Today is "White House Equal Pay Day"

Today is the day, in 2014 that women staff of the White House have to work to earn as much as male staff did in 2013. So much for the Democrat "War on Women" mime that it is all the evil GOP oppressing women.

Though the president is quick to trot out the easily disproved "fact" that women only earn $0.70 for every $1 that a man earns, the White House is the exception that makes the rule. Women there actually DO earn less than men ($0.88 for every $1 a man earns).

It is easy to poke fun at the White House for this but in all seriousness, there could be legitimate reasons for this discrepancy. The male staffers could be more experienced. They could actually work longer hours or have greater responsibilities. They could be better negotiators. The point is, if there is a valid reason for this difference at the White House, why can there not be valid reasons at other places where there is a straight dollar for dollar difference? Why is the White House given a pass but no other business?

If the Founders of Feminism Could See it Now...

Take this feminism test at this link. It is 5 samples of feminism at work today, one of which is a made up story. See if you can tell which one. It won't take long, I will wait...

I believe that the real leaders in the original feminist movement would be appalled at where their movement is today. What started out as a struggle for fair and equal treatment and to be given the opportunity to try for a thing, not an unequal leg up or hand-out but the honest and fair opportunity to earn "it" ("it" being what ever a woman wanted to try that was at one time not available to her because she was a woman) has morphed into this thing that is demonstrated by the examples at the above link is disgusting.

This week, at the winter Olympic games, women are competing in ice hockey, at the ski jump and other sports that just a few years ago they were barred from. Things like those, allowing women the opportunity to try to anything, to earn their right to be anything, is what Feminism was about. Today it is more and more a group of perpetually aggrieved, delicate little hot house flowers that read slights into every action and event for the purpose of gnashing their teeth and crying "poor me".

I am not sure which is worst, the fact that these women get any attention at all for these rants or that this "philosophy" is actively promoted in higher education and that students go into debt to be subjected to this warped thinking.

Shameful and disgusting.

eMail Joke: Disown me, please

A man was telling his buddy "You won't believe what happened last night. My daughter walked into the living room and said, "Dad, cancel my allowance immediately, forget my college tuition loan, rent my room out, throw all my clothes out the window, take my TV and my laptop. Please take any of my jewelry to the Salvation Army or Cash Converters. Then, sell my car, take my front door key away from me and throw me out of the house. Then, disown me and never talk to me again. Don't forget to write me out of your will and leave my share to any charity you choose."

"Holy Smokes," replied the friend, "she actually said that?"

"Well, she didn't put it quite like that. She actually said, 'Dad, meet my new boyfriend-- Mohammed. We're going to work together on Hillary's election campaign!'"

Your federal government at work.

Justice Department lawyer Bradley Heard was in court today trying to stop Kansas from ensuring that only citizens register to vote.

So, not only do Democrats want felons, the dead and illegals to vote (and vote often) by fighting any/all voter ID laws but they also want to make it so it does not matter. To allow foreigners to be able to register to vote as well. If they are on the rolls, you can't stop them from voting...

Sweet Irony

Really, did Woman's Day magazine really give Bill Clinton their "Red Dress" award?

Had it been the "blue dress" award, they could have had Monica present it!

Where is the justice?

Eight Police Officers Fire 103 Times At Two Unarmed Women Delivering Newspapers . . . Commission Rejects Calls For Any Officer To Be Fired Or Even Suspended

Let’s recap what these officers did and will now only be required to take a little more training. Police were searching for Dorner. Two women happened by the police delivering newspapers in a blue Toyota Tacoma pickup truck. (Dorner was driving a charcoal Nissan Titan pickup truck). Without clear identification and without any appearance of a weapon, the police fired 103 times at the truck. 

A Commission has now completed its investigation of the officers and found that the officers were not a serious fault in trying to kill two innocent unarmed women and unleashing a wall of lead on a vehicle.

So, it is perfectly legal for the police to fire repeatedly at completely innocent and unarmed citizens for no justifiable reason.

I am not sure which is worst. That all eight officers don't even get a slap on the wrist or the fact that they fired 103 times and managed to hit one person, once.

These are the "highly trained professionals" that are to be trusted with guns over me? Really? Oh, and look, the commission found that they did nothing wrong. 103 bullets at innocent people and they did nothing wrong. As others have noted, if a citizen pulls a gun on a cop, even when the cop does not announce themselves, WATCH OUT but they can shoot at citizens with impunity.

So what that they were in an intense situation, that is their job! They voluntarily put themselves into harms way for the privilege of wearing that badge. They are trained to deal with intense situations. This is inexcusable. They should not only be fired but likely brought up on charges for attempted murder.

What a country...

Firms must swear Obamcare not a factor in firings

Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.

And

Administration officials dispute that this is happening on any large scale. Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.

So, either a business must keep on full time workers that no longer make economic sense, due to Obamacare or they have to lie and say that these workers were not fired or had their hours reduced as a result of Obamacare.

The government is saying "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we know you cut staff due to Obamacare but as long as you say that is not the reason, all is good". This way, businesses can't publicly claim that these workers lost their jobs due to the ACA.

So, what is the actual "penalty" for a business that cuts staff due to the ACA and does NOT sign "ze papers"? Gulag for you?

Treasury, IRS, HHS Conspired To Create An Unauthorized, Half-Trillion Dollar Entitlement.

Heads should roll. And I’m not even sure I mean just figuratively, if this is true. It seems as if this sort of thing should be prosecuted as a crime.

Last week, two congressional committees issued a little-noticed report detailing how Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, and Health and Human Services officials conspired to create a massive new entitlement not authorized anywhere in federal law.

Yes, but you know they won't. No one will get fired and for the most part the media will ignore...

New "oldest star" discovered and it is in our backyard!

It Is in the Milky Way and Is 400 Million Years Older Than the Previously Identified 'Oldest' Star.

An actual moment of clarity and truth!

This is from an older article but that does not diminish its truthfulness...

Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re number one. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on “Macbeth”.

The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.

I think all citizens deserve the government they have but it really isn't fair that California feels that they have the right to impose these three on the rest of the country.

School officials are no fans of gun ban signs

The image can be frightening, Byrne said, “but if it keeps the world safer, that’s OK. The No. 1 thing we do for kids in general is keep their school safe. We don’t want schools to become like airports but we should make some reasonable efforts. If it’s reasonable to tell people this is a safe, no-gun zone, then we’ll do it.”

Sorry, what is really frightening is that:

1. An adult is afraid of a safety sticker that is designed to indicate a gun free zone.


2. That a adult feels safer in a specifically marked gun free zone and thinks that a sticker that he is afraid of will actually cause someone that is intent on causing mayhem to view the sticker and go "Oh, this is a gun free zone. I best take my mayhem elsewhere!".


3. Since they brought it up, Sandy Hook was also a "safe, no-gun zone" and everyone knows how that worked out.

What stops people with guns that are intent on causing harm is generally other people with guns. I wonder what these folks will say when their "magic" stickers fail to keep bad people away. Likely, they will continue to blame the guns.