Conservatives With A Better Understanding Of Science Are Climate Skeptics

From the title of this blog, one might think what is being said is that  "conservatives" have a "better understanding of science" (and math) and are therefore more likely to be "climate skeptics".  But no.  According to research by Dan M. Kahan and Jonathan C. Corbin, conservatives who are open-minded and have a better understanding of math and science, actually results in a "perverse" belief in climate change denial.

This is almost laughable.

Just think about it.  The inverse of what these two researchers are actually saying is that climate alarmists are closed-minded with little understanding of math and science.  Also, it appears that a belief is only "perverse" if it goes against the beliefs of those closed-minded, math and science illiterates.  And, by the way. Who appointed these two researchers as the arbiters of what is "perverse"?

More importantly, the study dispels the claim by Democrats and climate alarmists that conservatives and Republicans are those who don't understand science.  Back in January, Hollywood climate alarmist, Leonardo DiCaprio publicly said this: “Anyone that doesn’t believe that climate change is happening doesn’t believe in science.”  And, many others have said the same thing.  Bernie Sanders said this about Republicans in a Senate committee tirade in early November of this year: "We have an entire political party who is rejecting basic science!"

So, the bottom line is, that the Republicans are better educated in math and science; are too open-minded; and have a perverse belief in climate change denial.  While, on the other hand, people like DiCaprio and Bernie Sanders are closed minded science and math ignoramuses who have an excellent, non-perverted grasp of climate change.   Maybe, Kahan and Corbin should rethink their research findings.

References:

NEW PAPER: CLIMATE SKEPTICISM IS A ‘PERVERSE’ EFFECT OF ‘ACTIVELY OPEN-MINDED THINKING’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/02/new-paper-climate-skepticism-is-a-perverse-effect-of-actively-open-minded-thinking/

Leonardo DiCaprio Declares ‘Argument Over’ On Global Warming: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/leonardo-dicaprio-global-warming-skeptics-science/

Only one major political party in the world denies climate change, and it's in charge of the most important political body in the world: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-republicans-still-reject-the-science-of-global-warming-w448023

pb

America's Politics of Religion

America was founded on religious freedom by those who escaped religious persecution in other countries.  The phrase "Under God" appears consistently on our currency, and is integral to our Pledge of Allegiance.  However, God may be less important to Americans, today than He was even in 2007.  As the following chart shows, the percentage of those who were not affiliated with any religion has risen from 16% in 2007 to 23% in 2014.

Within that rise of unaffiliated, the percentage of Atheists rose from 1.6% to 3.1% and those who consider themselves Agnostic rose from 2.4% to 4% over that same 7 year period.  In general, members of mainstream religion are losing steam to non-believers:

The fact is simple, the country is becoming increasingly secular.  Evangelicals, Protestants, and Catholics are all in decline. As such, the Democrat party seems to be the biggest beneficiary of the decline with 28% of the party being non-affiliates.  How this will play out in this year's election is anyone's guess.  But, on the surface, it looks as if the Democrats are gaining in the size of their electoral base.

References:

Secular Voters Raise Their Voices - WSJ: https://www.google.com/search?q=Secular+Voters+Raise+Their+Voices&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjikcOLpZbNAhUES2MKHXCADbcQ_AUICCgC&biw=1067&bih=521#imgrc=kdNc32xWRl7mBM%3A

America’s Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Americans are less Christian, more atheist and agnostic: Pew survey: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/americans-christian-atheist-agnostic-survey-article-1.2219229

pb

Ted Cruz's Stunning Lack of Senatorial Endorsements

As of this writing, only 3 U.S. Republican Senators -- Mike Lee, Lindsey Graham, and John Risch -- have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz for their party's nomination.  What makes this so mystifying, is the fact that only Cruz can stop Trump from getting the 1,237 delegates needed to win going into the GOP Convention.  So, one would think that most of the GOP Senators would be tripping all over themselves to see that he has significant wins in the remaining state contests.

But, no.  The lack of Senators endorsing him merely re-enforces the notion that Cruz is  disliked by the very people that had to work with him in his last 3+ years in the Senate.   So much so, that they are willing to let Trump get his 1,237 delegates and, in doing so, avoid either a brokered or contested convention that could result in someone other than Trump being nominated..

In my opinion, this shows how unqualified Cruz is. Evidently, he's unable to work with his Republican peers; let alone with any Democrats.  Do we really want a Presidential candidate that can't get anything done because of his personality?  It must have really taken some effort on his part to literally become the most disliked man in Congress.


Reference:

Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Ted_Cruz

Why Everyone (in Congress) Hates Ted Cruz -- NYMag: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/12/why-everyone-in-congress-hates-ted-cruz.html

Why D.C. Hates Ted Cruz - The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-dc-hates-ted-cruz/426915/

Is Merrick Garland a Political Pawn of Obama?

By all accounts, Barack Obama is the most liberal President of modern times. Proof of this, is in the fact that his record of defending his policies in the Supreme Court have placed him dead last among all Presidents since 1946.

So, when it came to replacing Justice Scalia on the nation's high court, it was expected that he would attempt to tilt it decidedly left with another very liberal Justice nomination.  But, no. Instead, he nominated a moderate: Merrick Garland.

So what gives?

Well, this is just another way for the President to embarrass the Republican-led Senate and the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  In other words, it's politics.  By nominating an eminently qualified moderate, he can now sell the concept that McConnell and the rest of the GOP are being unreasonable if they fail to give Garland a hearing and a up and down vote.   Should they go through the motions of having a hearing, but reject Garland's appointment with a down vote, he can still continue to claim that the Republicans are being unreasonable.

In my opinion, I don't think Garland is the kind of jurist that Obama really wanted.   I'm sure that he wanted someone younger and one who would support more extreme liberal policies far into the future.  But Garland -- in an election year -- provides him with a unique political opportunity to attempt to return the control of the Senate to the Democrats.  If so, this would benefit the next President; should that President be a Democrat.  Similarly, if the next President is a Republican, a Democrat-led Senate would derail anything he might need done.  Obama sees this as a win-win for at least four more years after he leaves office.

References:

Obama has struggled at the Supreme Court: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/despite-this-weeks-victories-obama-has-struggled-at-the-supreme-court/

McConnell says Obama's Supreme Court nominee won't even have a vote after the election: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-mcconnell-supreme-court-20160320-story.html

Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has a record of restraint, not activism: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-garland-legal-analysis-20160318-story.html

Merrick Garland Is A 'Qualified' Supreme Court Nominee: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/16/merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee-obama/#57b6b6a82d6a

Hillary Is Not Invincible Against Republicans

Among Democrats and Republicans, alike, Hillary Clinton is assumed to have a lock on the  Democratic nomination for President.  What is not so clear is whether or not she could beat whoever the Republicans match her up with.

As of this writing, Clinton only beats two potential Republican candidates in the average national polls at Real Clear Politics: Donald Trump by 2.2 point margin and Marco Rubio by just 6-tenths of a percent.  Understand, both these leads are within the margin of error of around 3 points.  Also understand that these leads are a result of a single NBC News/Wall St. Journal poll conducted from 10/25 to 10/29 that heavily skewed the numbers in favor of Hillary Clinton. For example, this is a screenshot for the Real Clear national match-up between Hillary and Marco Rubio:

Here's the screenshot for Clinton versus Trump:

Note: Click on either image to enlarge for clearer viewing

Among all other Republicans, Hillary loses; with Ben Carson leading with a 5.2 point spread win.

It is almost a year away from the Presidential election and a lot could happen.  But, the belief by many Democrat pundits that Hillary will get the nomination and win the election isn't that certain.

Reference:

Real Clear Politics: 2016 Presidential Polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Hillary: When It Comes To Abortion, GOP are Terrorists

Last I heard, terrorists kill people.  So, it is interesting that Hillary Clinton would have said the following at a recent campaign rally:

"Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world, but it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States."

Only in Hillary's upside-down world are the Republicans (the GOP) all a bunch of terrorists for wanting to protect the lives of the unborn; and the practice of killing defenseless babies is the norm that we should all somehow protect, encourage, and even celebrate.  But, who are the real terrorists?  Is it the doctors that perform an estimated 1+ million abortions each year; and the 58+ million since the Row v. Wade Supreme Court decision?  Or is it Planned Parenthood that commits a full one third of all abortions?  Or is it Hillary, who is just fine with the prior three facts?

Finally, I would like to remind her that there are a lot of women -- 46% according to Gallup -- who are against abortion.  In that same polling, Gallup only found 47% being self-ascribed pro choice; mostly (80%) who don't practice any religion.  Let's stop trying to make this a widely held belief among women as a normal health issue that's on the level of, say, having a mammogram.

References:

On women's health, Clinton compares Republicans to 'terrorist groups': http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-terrorist-groups/


Planned Parenthood Abortion Facts: http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/12.31.14fact_sheet_pp_2013_2014_annual_report.pdf

US Abortion Clock: http://www.numberofabortions.com/

57762169 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/21/57762169-abortions-in-america-since-roe-vs-wade-in-1973/

Gallup:  Americans Misjudge U.S. Abortion Views: http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx

Why The Tax Code Must Be Streamlined

Several GOP contenders for the Presidency have said that they would simplify this country's bloated tax code if they were elected.  But, no one really explains "why" we need to do something about it.

As of April 15th of this year, there were more than 74,600 pages of federal tax code to wade through.  In 1913, when income tax was adopted, it was just 4 pages long. In 2011, General Electric (GE) filed a 57,000 page tax return for their 2010 taxes. Using every tax break available to them in those 74,600 pages, GE managed to pay zero taxes on $14 billion dollars in profits.  And, I suspect that a legion of IRS agents were needed for months to insure that GE's 57,000 page tax return was completely legal.

If we had a simplified tax code without a bunch of tax breaks, GE would not have been able to avoid paying any taxes in 2011.  Also, Americans wouldn't spend 6.1 billion man hours preparing their returns each year. 

Let's put the most hated of Federal Agencies -- the IRS -- out of business by reducing our tax code to what it was in 1913.

References:

Look at how many pages are in the federal tax code: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look-at-how-many-pages-are-in-the-federal-tax-code/article/2563032

GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ge-filed-57000-page-tax-return-paid-no-taxes-14-billion-profits_609137.html

It takes Americans 6.1 billion hours to prepare their taxes: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/15/virginia-foxx/it-takes-americans-61-billion-hours-prepare-their-/

Hillary's False Narrative On The Suppresion of Black Votes

For weeks now, Hillary Clinton has gotten in front of both black and racially mixed audiences, and made the claim that the black vote is being suppressed by the Republicans.  If that was true, why has black voting activity risen every year since 1996:

Source Census Bureau (link below)

In fact, based on their percentage of the population, black citizens have the highest voting participation of any other ethnic group in the country at 66.2%.  If Republicans are truly trying to suppress the black vote, they are doing a lousy job of it.

I only wish that blacks would wake up to the fact she is desperately pandering to them  with outright lies.  Claims like this are probably behind the fact that she polls so low on trustworthiness and honesty.

References:

Census Bureau Report on Diversity In Voting: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf

Hillary Clinton Says G.O.P. Rivals Try to Stop Young and Minority Voters: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-says-republican-rivals-try-to-stop-young-and-minority-voters.html

Hillary Clinton names and shames Republicans for voting restrictions: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-early-voting-rights-gop-118636.html

Hillary's Lawyer Sues Ohio To Thwart Voter Suppression: http://chicago.suntimes.com/other-views/7/71/600061/hillarys-lawyer-sues-ohio-to-thwart-voter-suppression-tactics-that-helped-the-gop-steal-ohio-in-2004

Poll; Clinton honest trustworthy problem extends to swing states: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/17/politics/poll-2016-elections-hillary-clinton-trustworthy/

Hillary Clinton not honest and trustworthy, voters say: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/28/hillary-clinton-not-honest-and-trustworthy-voters-/

Hillary Clinton: As honest and trustworthy as Donald Trump: Almost six in ten of those polled said that Hillary Clinton lacks those two traits: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/30/voters-want-someone-who-is-honest-and-trustworthy-in-2016-they-dont-think-thats-hillary-clinton/

A 2016 Challenge For Both Political Parties. Especially Republicans!

There are a lot of right leaning media types who believe, like Senator Ted Cruz, that the next Republican nominee for president should be solidly conservative and not center right;  otherwise they will lose in 2016.  In support of that argument, they point to the past losses by moderates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney.  But, this chart from Gallup says that the country is becoming more and more moderate:

Since the late 80's,  Republican party affiliation has fallen from 34% to just 25% in 2013.  The Democrats, too, have lost members; falling from 36% to 31%, but that is only a fraction of the Republican losses.  The big class winner in all of this has been the people who now call themselves Independents; rising from 34% to today's 42%.   Obviously, moderate Democrats and Republicans are leaving their respective parties and, in doing so, they are saying that they reject some of their party's ideals and platforms.

The chart above represents the averages for each given year.  What Gallup found by taking 2013 in isolation follows in this remarkable chart:

In just one year, nearly half of all American voters have identified themselves as moderates.  At the same time, this means that the remaining membership of both parties have become more extreme in their ideologies; having lost the moderates.

Because of this, each party will have to appeal to the middle in 2016.  While, at the same time, not offend its remaining base which may not come out to vote if the party platform is too moderate. That's quite the challenge for any politician.

The worst thing that Republicans could do is to try to appeal to their ever marginalized and more extreme base while ignoring the growing number of Independents.  For that reason, I think the conservative media types are wrong with their assessment that the next nominee for the Republican party should be staunchly conservative. 

References: 

Gallup: Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx

Ted Cruz in South Carolina: Nominate a conservative in 2016, or Democrats will win: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/19/ted-cruz-south-carolina-nominate-conservative-2016/?
 
pb

Bureaucratic Finger Pointing Over the Amtrak Crash

Even before the dead had been moved to the morgue, the Congressional Democrats were "ghoulishly" blaming Republicans for the the Amtrak crash.  They fault the GOP because they claim that funding delays were created when they didn't approve President' Obama's $300 billion infrastructure bill. They cite it as a direct cause of the accident.  But, in typical Democrat fashion, this was all a lie.

The first thing that disproved the infrastructure argument was when it was revealed that  the train engineer took that fatal turn at twice the speed recommended for that stretch of track.   Then, the Democrats shifted the argument by saying that, if the infrastructure spending bill had been approved,  a Positive Train Control (speed control) would have been installed on that train and the tragedy would have been avoided.

Really?

The truth is that the speed system was installed but not turned on.  Apparently, the blame for failing to activate it falls on the shoulders of Obama's Federal Communication Commission (FCC) who was dragging its heels at deciding which frequency the train control system could use.  But, the FCC is saying they already approved the frequency usage and the fault lies with Amtrak for not turning the system on.  Somehow, George W. Bush has avoided the blame on this one. At least for now.

Lying and CYA (covering Your a*s) seems to be alive and well in Washington D.C.  Does anyone really care about the lives that were lost and the people who were injured, or are we just taking advantage of another political opportunity?


References:

Speed Control Was Installed, Not On at Time of Amtrak Crash: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/14/exclusive-train-control-was-installed-turned-off-at-time-of-amtrak-crash-congressmen-say


Are Republicans really to blame for fatal Amtrak crash? : http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-republicans-really-to-blame-for-fatal-amtrak-crash-2015-05-15

Will the True Wage Report Please Stand Up

The Labor Department, in releasing the weekly unemployment claims number, also released wage data for March.  As Reuters news is reporting:

Private sector wages and salaries were up 2.8 percent in the 12 months through March, the biggest gain since the third quarter of 2008, after rising 2.2 percent in the 12 months through December.

The only problem with this 2.8% increase is that it isn't consistent with the Employment Situation Report for March from another government agency: the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.  That report, in Table B (page 5), says that average weekly private-sector wages only rose 2.1% from $839.73 in March 2014 to $857.67 in March 2015; just barely above the core annual inflation rate of 1.8%.  

Does the Obama Administration think people are too dumb to compare two separate reports for their accuracy and consistency?  Is this a politically motivated report to counter GOP Presidential candidates and their increasing focus on the poor wage growth under Obama? 

References:

U.S. jobless claims at 15-year low; consumer spending rises: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN0NL1JT20150430

THE  EMPLOYMENT  SITUATION  — M ARCH  2015: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

In rounding out the Labor Department’s report, core inflation advanced 1.8% on a year-over-year basis after gaining 1.7% in the 12 months ending February and 1.6% through January:  http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/us-inflation-in-march-rises-0-2-annual-rate-declines/10001692/

Restoring the American Dream: Economy & Jobs | GOP: https://www.gop.com/platform/restoring-the-american-dream/

The Damage That Obama Has Done To The Democrat Party

In 2009, President Obama was swept into office with widespread expectations that America would become a better place.  Aiding him in this endeavor was the fact that he had majority control in the House of Representatives and a two-thirds unstoppable majority in the Senate.

But, as the lies and deceptions surrounding his promise of "hope and change" started to slowly creep out of the woodwork, things went dramatically south for both him and his party.  His approvals fell from nearly 70% on Gallup to today's low 40's.  In 2010, in response to ObamaCare and the changes that Americans just weren't liking, there was a sea-change election with Democrats losing the House and their powerful majority in the Senate.  Additionally, state legislature, once Democrat controlled, started to fall.

While Obama got reelected in 2012, the Democrats in both the House and Senate continued to lose seats but, not enough to lose majority control in the Senate.  The trend toward Republican control of state legislatures continued.

Then in 2014, the Democrats lost even more seats in the House while the Senate's majority flipped to a 55-seat takeover by the GOP; resulting in the highest Congressional control by a single party since the Great Depression. The Republicans also became even stronger in the state legislatures.  With 69% as the most powerful Republican control since 1900.   All that the President could say about this is that if two-thirds of the people hadn't stayed home this last election, things would have been a lot better for his party.  As if all those people would have voted for Democrats.

The clear and simple fact is that, since President Obama took office, his party has become a bunch of historic 3-time losers;  losing both statewide and nationally in 2010, 2012, and now again, in 2014.  As a result, the President's party is at its weakest position in at least 85 years; 114 years if you just look at state legislatures.  Obviously, the nation is rejecting Democrat ideas and principals and I believe that the party's top salesman, Barack Obama, is responsible.  I also believe that if he continues in an even more heavy-handed and ideologically-driven manner over the next two years, the losses by the in 2016 will be even greater; including a possible landslide loss of the White House.

Obviously, the Republicans, who are supposed to be in total disarray and with very little approval in the polls, are doing something right.  Or, perhaps, it is Obama and Democrats who are doing everything wrong.  

References:

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Republicans just won the election. President Obama doesn’t much care: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/republicans-just-won-the-election-president-obama-doesnt-much-care/

In the states, the GOP is in its best position since the Great Depression: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/09/in-the-states-the-gop-is-in-its-best-position-since-the-great-depression/

Why Democrats Don't Deserve the Black Vote

Recently, The Drudge Report posted the following video made by three activists who were railing against Democrat policies and how they always want the Black vote but do nothing to benefit African American communities:



I, for one, have always been perplexed as to why Democrats think they deserve the Black vote.

It was a Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who lead a Civil War to free Blacks from slavery.  Following the Civil War, so-called Radical Republicans fought for things like voting rights for Blacks in the Reconstruction era.  Then, in 1964, it was white Southern Democrats such as Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. who filibustered trying to block civil rights legislation.  Republicans voted for civil rights by 80% in both Houses of Congress. Democrats only voted to approve 61% in the House and 66% in the Senate.

Now, in the above video, these three Black activists appear to be complaining about just one thing: Jobs.

So, to that I need only present one chart that appeared on the CNN Money site in 2011:

 

Thanks to the policies of Democrat President, Jimmy Carter, Black unemployment rose to over 20% in the early 1980's; and the disparity between Black and White unemployment was high.  Then, thanks to the policies of a Republican President by the name of Ronald Reagan, Blacks, as well as all Americans, enjoyed one of the longest stretches of lower unemployment since World War II.  To be fair, the policies of Bill Clinton also benefited Blacks in the 1990's, though much of that success was done by building on the policies of Reagan.

Today, under Obama, Blacks are again hurting; just as the video above points out.  They, as of this writing, have an unemployment rate of 11.4% as compared to 5.3% for Whites, and the disparity between Black and White unemployment has returned to the days of Jimmy Carter where Black unemployment was more than twice as high as it is for Whites.

So, then, why should any Black think that only Democrats will benefit them in terms of jobs and a better life?

References:

Black unemployment: Highest in 27 years: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/02/news/economy/black_unemployment_rate/

Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Radical Republican: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican

Reconstruction Era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era

The True War On Women: ObamaCare

For years, Democrats have claimed that Republicans have waged a war on women; primarily over the so-called "reproductive rights" of abortion and contraception.  As if this is all women care about when they enter the voting booth. 

But, an important issue that should be on every woman's mind when they enter a voting booth should be ObamaCare.

Now, granted, ObamaCare gives them free access to some contraception and four free morning-after abortive meds but, that's where it ends.

First of all, the healthcare law is forcing many women, especially those with families, to lose their existing insurance.  As a result, they are being forced into new plans that may cost them little to nothing on a monthly basis; assuming they qualify for federal subsidies, but the real problem is that almost all ObamaCare health insurance policies are actually catastrophic policies.  Meaning that they have a low monthly cost but carry a hefty deductible of several thousand dollars per year.  And, if they don't qualify for a subsidy, they not only have to pay a high deductible, but also get nailed with high premiums.

Then, too, when enrolled in ObamaCare, it is very possible that women will lose their current doctor if they are not in the network of any of the insurers in the exchange.  At the same time, this new doctor may be miles away and only have admitting and treating privileges with a hospital that is also miles away.  As a result, people needing care are going to emergency rooms rather than travel to an ObamaCare doctor.  In addition, because reimbursement rates are lower under ObamaCare, the quality of care may also suffer.

Finally, there is the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare.

Democrats will argue that millions of low income Americans, who are above the poverty level, will get free healthcare under the expansion of Medicaid.  But, the problem here is that too few doctors and hospitals will accept Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rates are so low.  In fact, only 46% of doctors, in a recent study, said they would accept Medicaid patients; down 10% from just 4 years ago.  It is quite possible that we could get to a point where only a third, or less, of this nation's doctors will treat Medicaid patients as states continue to slash reimbursement rates in order to keep their budgets in balance. This will be seen in mostly Democratic states where high union pensions must be dealt with; such as California.

So, ask yourself this, isn't ObamaCare a major part of the real war on women since it fights against their natural instinct to care for themselves and their families?


References:

Another 25 million ObamaCare victims: http://nypost.com/2014/01/14/another-25-million-obamacare-victims/

Obamacare Sticker Shock Found in Deductibles, Not Premiums: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/02/03/Obamacare-Sticker-Shock-Found-Deductibles-Not-Premiums

Obamacare website won’t reveal insurance costs for 2015 until after election:  States with key Senate races face double-digit premium hikes: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/obamacare-website-wont-reveal-insurance-costs-for-/?page=all

Doctors Begin To Refuse Obamacare Patients: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/04/doctors-begin-to-refuse-obamacare-patients/

More patients flocking to ERs under Obamacare: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/08/more-patients-flocking-to-ers-under-obamacare/10173015/

Losing Patience, and Patients, With Medicaid: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-10/doctors-shun-patients-who-pay-with-medicaid

California Cuts Medicaid Payments Amid Wave of New Users: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/california-cuts-medicaid-payments-amid-wave-of-new-users.html

2012: 13 States Cut Medicaid To Balance Budgets: http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-cuts/

States Can Cut Back on Medicaid Payments, Administration Says: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/states-can-cut-back-on-medicaid-payments-administration-says.html

pb

The Blatant Lie That Ebola Is Spreading Because of GOP Budget Cuts

For Democrats, lying seems to come naturally and is considered a necessary means to an end.  Remember that famous "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" lie that helped Obama gain public approval for his planned healthcare reform.

Now, with the Democrat control of the Senate in serious jeopardy, there is a desperate effort being made and a blatant lie being told. They are somehow trying to blame the spread of Ebola on Republican budget cuts.  The basis for this seems to be an article appearing in the Huffington Post showing the CDC's budget dropping by $600 million since 2010 (the same year that the Republicans took the House of Representatives).  In support of that fact, the writer presents the CDC's budget numbers as follows:
 
           "2010: $6.467 billion
            2011: $5.737 billion
            2012: $5.732 billion
            2013: $5.721 billion
            2013 (after sequestration took effect): $5.432 billion
            2014: $5.882 billion"

But if you looked at President Obama's actual 2014 Budget submission for the CDC, you would have seen the following opening text:

"The president’s fiscal year ( FY ) 2014 budget request for CDC is $6.6 billion, a decrease of $270 million from FY 2013."

First, it is Obama who cut the budget from 2013 to 2014 with his own budget submission.  Secondly, $6.6 billion dollars is actually higher than 2010's spending level of $6.47 billion as claimed by the Huffington Post author.

Keep this in mind, too.  The CDC had publicly said that Ebola had a low risk of reaching the U.S. or even qualifying as an outbreak.  Further, up until now, it has occurred infrequently and has been easily contained and controlled. So, it is a little hard to believe that a lot money had or would have been prioritized to fight a disease that had so little chance of reaching our shores.  Also, if the CDC wanted to focus on Ebola, there are thousands of studies (some absolutely ridiculous like studying shrimp on a treadmill or why dogs bite) that could be terminated in order to fund Ebola research and training.

However, that fact doesn't seem to stop the left from perpetuating the lie.  Take this rant from the liberal talk show host Richard Fowler:



Then there's this ad that is now airing in States where Senate Democrats are in trouble:



In this last ad, the National Institute of Health (NIH) is mentioned as having their budgets cut along with the CDC's.  That too is a lie.  Republicans have done everything possible to keep funding for the NIH.  From the government's Office of Legislative Policy and Analysis, you get a clear sense of this happening in 1999:

"The effort to double the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget began as a movement among Senate Republicans and has had bipartisan support in both the House and Senate since the first session of the 105th Congress."

 And, that effort resulted in the following:

Year	Estimate for Doubling	NIH Actual Appropriation	President's Budget Request
1999	$15.636 billion	$15.612 billion	$14.763 billion
2000	$17.960 billion	$17.913 billion	$15.933 billion
2001	$20.631 billion	$20.313 billion	$18.813 billion
2002	$23.698 billion	$23.042 billion	$23.042 billion
2003	$27.221 billion	Pending	$27.335 billion

Clearly, if it had been for a Republican effort, the NIH wouldn't currently have more than $30 billion, today, to fight disease.

Sadly, when the truth is finally revealed, the elections will be over. Just as when the "keep your doctor" lie was finally exposed, ObamaCare had already been passed into law and was being rolled out. As a consequence, Obama never payed the price for that lie in his 2012 run against Romney.

References:

Huffington Post:  Agency Leading Ebola Response Has Had Budget Cut Nearly $600 Million Since 2010: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/ebola-cdc-budget_n_5913844.html

Budget Request for FYI 2014: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/topic/Budget%20Information/appropriations_budget_form_pdf/FY2014_Budget_Request_Summary.pdf

NIH Budget: http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

CDC Director: Ebola Outbreak Unlikely In http://fox8.com/2014/10/05/cdc-director-ebola-outbreak-unlikely-in-u-s/ U.S.: 

Office of Legistative Policy and Analysis: 107th Congress: http://olpa.od.nih.gov/legislation/107/pendinglegislation/doubledec.asp

CDC Studies (A to Z): http://www.cdc.gov/az/d.html

U.S. Government Has Spent $682,570 to Study 'Shrimp On A Treadmill': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1en-bXZaw 

CDC Dog Bite Study: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/index.html

Will The Label 'Do Nothing Congress' Backfire On Democrats In November

Ever since 2010, when the GOP took control of the House of Representatives, liberals and the liberal media have referred to them as a "Do Nothing Congress" because the President and the Democrats have been unable to get any of their liberal agenda passed through the GOP-controlled House. Of course that moniker also includes the Democrat-controlled Senate.  So, from a public opinion standpoint, they are both "do nothings".  This is why Congress, as a whole, has historically low approval ratings.

Going into the fall elections, when the Democrats desperately need to keep Senatorial control, the liberal name callers may have unwittingly set up a negative branding of their own candidates who are seeking reelection in typically GOP voting states.  And, I think this is why -- at least partly -- that 7 existing Democrat Senate seats are currently up for grabs going into November. This according to today's Real Clear Politics aggregate polling results.

Seven seats that just might give the control of the Senate to the Republicans.

References:

A 'do-nothing Congress'?: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/212041-a-do-nothing-congress

Rachael Maddow: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trying-split-the-do-nothing-congress

No surprise public approval of Congress at rock-bottom: http://www.news-press.com/story/news/2014/10/05/surprise-public-approval-congress-rock-bottom/16737691/

Will Obama's Real Climate Scientist Please Stand Up?

Recently, with a series of zingers, President Obama chided the GOP as climate deniers.  In a specific response to those Republicans who have made the argument that he is not a climate scientist and therefore not qualified to push climate issues, Obama said this: "I mean, I'm not a scientist...but I've got this guy, John Holdren, he's a scientist."  Thus referring to his Science Czar, John Holdren.

The problem with Holdren is his credibility.

In 1971, he wrote a paper titled "Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man" in which he predicted a coming ice age due to reduced atmospheric transparency.  That reduction, he claimed, was a direct result of all kinds of human and natural pollutants. In arguing his point, he cooked up the theory  that pollutants were acting like filters; not allowing heat to reach the surface of the earth.  Now, today, he seems to believe just the opposite; with those very same pollutants trapping heat and, thus, causing global warming.

Now, I suppose it's OK for people of science to change their minds.  However, this flip flop on such a major issue as to the direction of the earth's temperature brings into question his scientific prowess and, subsequently, his believability.

So, which Holdren are we to believe today?  The guy who said we are entering an ice age?  Or, the one that Obama says is his climate scientist?  A man who appears to have gotten it so wrong in 1971.

References:

Obama Has a Response to Republicans' 'I Am Not a Scientist' Line: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-has-a-response-to-republicans-i-am-not-a-scientist-line-20140626

Flashback: John Holdren in 1971: ‘New ice age’ likely: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/08/flashback-john-holdren-in-1971-new-ice-age-likely/

Democrats Say Investigating Benghazi A Waste of Time. Remember The Bush Years?

For months, the Democrats were willing to play along with the Republicans on the Benghazi hearings since there was no smoking gun connection to the White House.  But, as soon as a very damaging email was unearthed -- one that may finally connect the dots on the Benghazi false narrative and point to the President's own staff -- the Democrats now claim that it would be a waste of time to investigate any further.  Really?

Obviously, that email is like blood in the water and Republicans can sense that they are finally getting close to finding out the depth, breadth and real intent of those Benghazi talking points.  Their sense is that they were all politically motivated and should be exposed as such.  This is very similar to the Democrats spending so much "wasted time"  going after the Bush Administration regarding the outing of Valerie Plame, or over the supposed politically motivated dismissal of the 26 Department of Justice attorneys.  In fact, in 2006, Democrat Representatives Robert Wexler and Dennis Kucinich put all their ongoing investigations into one big failed effort to impeach Bush with a bill that had a sum total of 35 articles of impeachment.  35 articles...35 ongoing hearings.

What Goes Around Comes Around! 

References:

Democrats dismiss new Benghazi committee as ‘a waste of time’: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democratic-rep-benghazi-committee-colossal-waste

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

For ObamaCare: The 2014 Elections Might Have Serious Consequences

I think a lot of Republicans (and Democrats, too) believe that it would be impossible to repeal and replace ObamaCare unless they controlled both houses of Congress and could retake the presidency in 2017.  However, I believe there is another scenario that could seal ObamaCare's fate in 2015.

If (and that is a big "if") the Democrats receive a similar shellacking in 2014 as was seen in 2010, and they lose control of the Senate and see even more losses of seats in the House, a number of Senate Democrats may possibly be willing to side with Republicans in repealing ObamaCare.  Enough, even,  to override an Obama veto.  I can say this with confidence because no Democrat is going to be willing to lose another sweeping election because of their continued support of ObamaCare.

The only way Republicans can pull this off is to offer a bill that, in the very first paragraph, repeals or supersedes ObamaCare and, then, goes on to outline a new reform of heath care. One that would have clear public acceptance over the current law and one that, at the very least, is somewhat acceptable to the Democrats.

The biggest hangup in doing this will be the Republican's insistence on tort reform.  Because trial lawyers are such big donors to the Democrats, it will be very difficult for any of them to vote for a bill that would harm that critical donor base.  In fact, right now, ObamaCare, with all of its legislative facets, is a potential gold mine for trial lawyers if health care providers and insurance companies fail to comply with any parts of the law; leading to both Federal and civil lawsuits being filed.  While tort reform would definitely benefit the country as a whole by lowering health care costs, the Republicans would be wise to hold off doing anything about it until they do have the presidency and both houses of congress.

It's Not The GOP Who Hold The Middle Class Hostage -- It's Obama

How things get twisted.

The Republicans have never said they wanted to raise taxes on anyone.  In fact, their position is to keep taxes low and keep them at the same rate as they are right now. For everyone! 

Only one person and his party have threatened to end the Bush tax cuts for everyone and that is Barack Obama and his Democrats in Congress.  Simply put, if Obama doesn't get his tax increases on the rich, he is willing to let all the Bush tax cuts expire.  Yet, over and over, again, the President claims that the Republicans are holding every middle class family hostage on the Bush tax cuts.  But, the truth is just the opposite.  Obama's got the gun to the head of the middle class and he's willing to shoot unless the Republicans surrender. 

--- ABC News: Obama Accuses House GOP of Holding Middle Class Tax Cuts ‘Hostage’: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/obama-accuses-house-gop-of-holding-middle-class-tax-cuts-hostage/