Tuesday, July 8, 2014

If ICE/DHS Knew 65,000+ Illegal Minors Would Get Apprehended At Our Border This Year, How Exactly Did this Border Crisis 'Sneak Up' On Them?

This ad that appeared back in January of this year on the Fed Biz.gov website is damning.  Take a look at it.  

The document you can download as 'Juvenile Transport RFI (TONY Edits 1:29. 14 doc) has an opening section that reads thusly: 
(Click on the screenshot to see it at full size)

Read the first 6 sentences carefully.  What fact can be glean from this employment ad? 

1. ICE/DHS knew back in January 2014 that 65,000 illegal minors would be apprehended on the US's southwestern border this year.  

This is very curious since a 65,000 figure is more than DOUBLE the number of illegal minors apprehended the year before, according to the U.S. Customs & Border Protection's official website: 


In all of FY 2013, 26,206 UAC were caught at the border.  By just June of this year, that number had doubled to 52,193, a 99% increase.  

Here are the totals of unaccompanied minors apprehended on the border from 2008-2012 according to the U.S. Border Patrol's official PDF: 


Note that is is cleverly set up to disguise what particular border these minors were caught at. Instead of dividing the total by sectors, it's set up to just list every single country & how many minors were caught from each. Still, it's not hard to take a little time and add up the number of minors caught from countries to the South of the United States.  

2008: 7,988
2009: 19,599
2010: 18,467
2011: 15,853
2012: 24,394
2013: 26,206
2014: 52,193 [so far]

[UPDATE!] Someone at Investor's Business Daily was on the ball, made this very telling graphic based on the figures from above: 


2.  Instead of being deported, these 65,000 UAC were going to be classified as refugees and relocated by escorts to shelters throughout the continental United States. 

This is what is now happening places like Murrieta, CA.  ICE is attempting to send the illegals to towns that will be forced to help support them.  The gov't knew a huge, never before seen influx of minors was going to need to be resettled and were looking to hire escorts to ferry the kids to the shelters. 

3.  The ICE plan, formulated before January 2014, called for escorts traveling with the alien minors to these shelters by 25% local ground transport, 25% ICE charter and 50% commercial air.  

These facts, undisputed by the Government, which has vouched for the authenticity of the ad, leads to the real question that every member of Congress and every American citizen needs to consider: 

IF they knew this flood of kids was coming, HOW did they end up so unprepared for it?  

 65,000+ alien minors getting apprehended at our borders in a single fiscal year would absolutely swamp our present immigration/border system.  Authorities HAD to know a huge influx of this size would overwhelm present resources.  And yet beyond hiring escorts and setting up a few hastily prepared camps on some military bases, they appear to have done NOTHING to get ready for it. 




Do you remember ANYBODY in Washington discussing this coming tidal wave of kids back in January? How about February? No?  OK then....March? April? May? Hello? ANYONE?!  Why *didn't* they talk about it? Why did no one in the government sound the alarm? 

Obama is only NOW getting around to authorizing $2 billion in emergency spending to build shelters for the kids that ICE/DHS knew were coming over seven months ago.  

As yet, nobody in this government has had to answer how they knew the numbers would increase so dramatically more than 100% over the preceding year.  Or how, having known it, they didn't prepare for it. 

Don't buy the bullshit being spread by the media that Obama & the DHS are being 'forced' to relocate these kids ot shelters all over the country.  That ad from back in January demonstrates THEY PLANNED TO DO THIS ALL ALONG. 

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Progressives Have Been Caught Covering Up Their Real Goals Yet AGAIN In The Hobby Lobby Case

Amazing how many people think the Hobby Lobby decision was about forcing the company to provide birth control to it's employees.  

Hobby Lobby was ALREADY providing birth control coverage to it's employees.  16 different types of it, in fact.  What can we draw from the fact that many of the people blathering about this case don't know that?  

The real issue in the Hobby Lobby case was whether the government could force private businesses/corporations into providing abortifacients.

First of all, let's be clear:  abortion/taking an abortifacient is not birth control. I don't care how many shrieking leftists say different.   Birth control prevents the egg and the sperm from coming together. An abortion/abortifacient destroys an already fertilized egg.

Now, if you think it's a popular position in America to FORCE other people to pay for ABORTIONS, you haven't seen  the  polls  then.

Forcing somebody to pay for something is forcing them to participate in it. It can't be argued any other way.  Like it or not, many people have objections to abortion & don't want to be compelled into funding it.

What Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius  decided was that American citizens who form a closely-held corporation do not lose their rights by doing business together.  The Obama DOJ attempted to argue that people who join together to form a corporation and do business as a group lose basic American rights when they do so.

The Court found just because you and several other people joined together to form a corporation to do business DOESN'T mean you & they lose your basic rights.  If for religious reasons you want to opt out of a program that would FORCE you to fund the purchase of abortifacients, the Supreme Court found that  you have a RIGHT based on the 1st Amendment to do so.

This finding by the Court that the 1st Amendment clause on religious conscience applies to folks in business together has incensed Liberals.

Due to misinformation spread by the DNC-Media-Complex, many still think all this was about DENYING birth control. Far from it.  But the media perception of the case has been deliberately manipulated to provide a false understanding of it. 
Progressives are incapable of honestly arguing for their goals. Misinformation/distortion is necessary to cover up their plans.

"We would like to force employers to pay for abortions/abortifacients" had to be sensationalized by media propaganda into 'provide birth control'.

To low info people who get their news from ABC, NBC, CBS, Daily Kos, TPM, or MSNBC, that's what this case has always been about: birth control.  It's supposedly about evil religious bigots refusing to fork over a few bucks so poor desperate women could have access to birth control because....#WARONWOMEN!

Most people have noticed how stupid on it's face this argument is. The issue is not access but who pays for it.

And so we've had months of misdirection, with media liberals shrieking about how refusing to pay for birth control = denying access to it or even more hilariously, an attempt to 'ban' it. 

But even in that misdirection, they were successful in selling their idea that this entire case was about birth control.  It had to be about birth control because the people in DC driving this case are WELL AWARE of poll results on what the public thinks about forcing people to pay for abortions.

If they had openly and honestly advocated for forcing people to pay for abortion/abortifacients, this case goes nowhere with the public.

"Force my religious employer to pay for my birth control!" is a much, MUCH easier sell than "Force him to pay for my abortifacients!"

There is a wealth of research & polls going all the way back to the 1970's showing how Americans feel about gov't funded abortion.  Americans don't want tax dollars used for abortions. Neither would they want employers being forced to fund it.
How underhanded has Obama & his HHS been? Recall that when the Affordable Care Act passed, the HHS mandate wasn't a part of it.  No, REGULATORS tacked that HHS mandate on there AFTER it had passed. Bart Stupak & others never would have voted for the ACA if a mandate forcing employers to provide coverage for abortifacients was included. 

Remember how Stupak told the media how betrayed he felt once the HHS rolled out the mandate? He realized Obama & the party leaders had played him.   He said he and other pro-life Dems would not have voted for the ACA if abortifacient funding was part of it. So they had to be tricked.

And in the end, when you get right down to it, that's the only strategy in the Progressive playbook. They have to TRICK people to advance.  ObamaCare, Global Warming, this present border crisis, no matter the issue, Progressives can't come right  out & say what they want.

"Millions of you will lose your health plans & Dr.'s, but it's OK because your new, higher cost plans will subsidize insurance for others!"

Is THAT how Obama & Co. sold the ACA for 3 years?  Be honest, now.
You think Obama & Co. didn't know how the ACA would actually work, how that 15% without insurance was going to get it paid for?  Of course they did. Millions of people had to be forced to newer higher cost plans to pay for the new insurance of others.  "If  you like your plan you can keep your plan!" was all about keeping most people from realizing what was about to happen.

Remember the other huge whopper that they told their stupid base to get it to go along with it's own forth-coming fleecing?  "Oh hey, this won't cost you anything anyway, this new huge entitlement we're creating here. Rich people will foot the bill, not you!"

Amazing how the rubes keep falling for that one, isn't it? 

The first thing you have to do when studying an issue where Obama & his progressive friends are moving is learn: what are they REALLY after?

Global warming is about fooling people into thinking there's a real threat waaay off there in the future so hand them huge amounts of wealth & power now to reorder society as they see fit.   Hobby Lobby was about gutting the 1st Amendment religious conscience clause & forcing employers to pay for abortions/abortifacients.  The ongoing border crisis is about getting to amnesty no matter how they get there.  ObamaCare was about preparing the way for single payer destabilizing the insurance market. 

No matter what the issue is, Obama & Co. can't honestly argue for their goals since they are well aware they'd be rejected.

But - get this! - the people who try to stop them from reaching their dishonest, extreme goals are the 'extremists'.

Did you tell the truth about ObamaCare before it passed & was implemented? 
Well you just hated sick people and wanted them to die.  Plus you were just mad there's a black fellow living in the White House. 

Are you telling the truth about their Global warming scam right now? 
That just shows you hate the planet & want it to burn up.

Do you accurately reject the White House's arguments on Hobby Lobby? 
Well then you hate women or something.

Have you repeatedly questioned Obama's insane open borders/selective immigration law enforcement? 
You're a racist that hates poor people who don't look like you.

Say....is anybody noticing a....TREND.... there?

Let me set your mind at ease, if you've been troubled the past 6 years.

Did you want to keep the health insurance plan & Dr. you were happy with? 
Then no, you don't hate sick people & want them to die.

Would you like unemployment to drop & wages to rise w.out the gov't dictating it artificially?
Then no, you're not a racist on immigration.

Do you object to employers being forced to fund abortions if it's against their religion? 
Then nope, you're not engaging in #WARONWOMEN

Would you like a sane energy policy that isn't dependant on outdated computer models & bogus science? 
Then no, you don't hate the planet and want to see all the cute, fluffy polar bears diiiiie.  

To reach your extremist goal, you have to create propaganda to convince enough people what you really want is something else.  And the progressive agenda for America IS extreme. This is why they are 'forced' to lie to get anywhere on their goals.  And the Democrat-Media-Complex plays a huge role in selling the Progressive propaganda to the public.

Now this latest ObamaCare-related issue, the Hobby Lobby case, the media relentlessly sold it as being about 'birth control'.   And that's EXACTLY what the vast majority of people think the case was about, then. Because that's what they heard on the news.

Newsflash: Hobby Lobby provided 16 different types of birth control coverage to it's employees. What they WOULDN'T provide? Abortifacients.  But thanks to the Democrat-Media Complex, most people out there don't know that. It's #WARONWOMEN 24/7, etc.

I mean, you tell somebody the fact "Hobby Lobby was already providing coverage for 16 different kinds of birth control!" and you can see them blinking.  DOES....NOT...COMPUTE.....

When the business already paid for 16 different types of birth control, the issue was NOT....paying for birth control.  #AREWECLEAR?

"Hmmm. 16 different kinds of birth control available, you say? Well then I guess the issue WASN'T birth control then. Whatever could it have been?!  Hold on while I Google!"

Oh and hey, make no mistake. After Obama & HHS rammed this mandate through & forced employers to pay for abortifacients, actual abortion was coming next. As sure as night follows day.

Now you know why the Progressive Left is in a mouth-foaming fury at the Court's stopping this thing right in it's tracks.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Young Girls Are Being Raped In A Humanitarian Crisis This President DELIBERATELY Created 

Barack Obama is a malignant narcissist leaving a trail of destruction and ruined lives in his thoughtless wake. If it's not our former allies in Iraq getting executed by ISIL, it's kids getting raped on their way to Obama's open borders. We've reached the stage where the human cost of Obama's stupid decisions, dereliction of duty & outright lawlessness is far too high.

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar can't believe what's he's seeing on the border

Texas Officials Discovering Almost 1/3rd Of Young Girls In The Internment Camps Have Been Raped

With the oppressive summer heat “it’s going to be very, very dangerous in this part of the country to have young kids women and other folks to come in,” says Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar (D-Laredo, TX) 
On Monday a South Texas sheriff announced the discovery of a 11 year old Guatemalan boys body about a mile from the border. Cuellar said the discovery of the boys body reinforces just how perilous the journey is into the US. 
“Certainly I hope they stop coming because we probably will have more deaths as the hot weather continues,” says Cuellar. “It’s not just the heat that could kill them but there are other dangers. Officials at Lackland Air Force Base told us that one-third of young girls that come across – and they were just like little babies; 10, 11, 14 years of age. That about one third of them get raped and/or abused on the way here.” 
Cuellar says that as he was speaking to Customs and Border Patrol agents he was also discovering a disturbing trend of adults “renting” children in Central America in order to increase their chances of being able to stay in the U.S. once they cross over.
In the past, immigration enforcement would encounter about 5,000 unaccompanied minors in a year. That started changing around 2010 when the number began ticking upward dramatically. The numbers of such minors being seen now are unprecedented. The 52,000 who have shown up so far this year are a 99% increase over last year, according to the U.S. Customs & Border Protection official website:



How bad is it? Our immigration system has been totally and completely overwhelmed.




Remember that when Arizona tried to take steps to secure it's own border 2 years ago, the state was quickly slapped down by Washington DC with the full approval of the Progressive Left. 

Progressives never notice until it's too late that real people will risk their lives based on sh*t they said to look cool and win votes.


"Why, I'd never send those people back like that mean ol' George Bush!"

Remember when he was running back in 1991, Bill Clinton criticized then-President George H.W. Bush for his policy of stopping and returning Haitian boats that attempted landfall in Florida? Eager to prove how compassionate and cool he was compared to Bush, Clinton forthrightly declared than when HE was President, he wouldn't send those boats back. He'd welcome them with open arms!

GUESS WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?



Surprising no one except apparently Bill Clinton, there was a huge upsurge in the number of boats and leaky rafts launched from desperate places like Cuba and Haiti that tried to make it to Florida. Some of those boats and leaky makeshift rafts sank, and suddenly a crisis was happening. Sure some people drowned every year trying to make that dangerous trip, but the huge spike in numbers meant a huge spike in deaths.  Then there were reports of almost 1,000 makeshift rafts being prepared by Haitians who intended to launch them in concurrence with Clinton's inauguration.

Clinton was flabbergasted by this. It was stunning to him to realize poor, desperate people would make decisions that would place their lives at risk based on something he said just to look cool on the campaign trail and garner some votes. That thousands of people would risk drowning in the ocean based on some soundbite he threw out there to win a news cycle & look more compassionate than Bush brought Clinton up short and forced him to reexamine his position.

So shortly before his inauguration, Clinton announced that he would be continuing the exact same deportation policy that Bush had. He swallowed his pride and did the right thing. The New York Times reported:
Saying that he feared a mass exodus of Haitians unless he acted, President-elect Bill Clinton announced today that he would at least temporarily abandon a campaign pledge and would continue the Bush Administration's policy of forcibly returning Haitians who try to emigrate to the United States. 
It was Mr. Clinton who helped create the expectation of an exodus from Haiti when he condemned the Bush Administration for a "cruel policy of returning Haitian refugees to a brutal dictatorship without an asylum hearing." 
Mr. Clinton had promised to give Haitians refuge and make it easier for them to apply for political asylum until democracy is restored in their country. At one point in the campaign he said, "If I were President, I would -- in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that they weren't political refugees -- give them temporary asylum until we restored the elected Government of Haiti." 
That promise prompted Haitians to build nearly 1,000 boats that could accommodate as many as 150,000 people, many of whom are poised to set sail in stormy seas in the hopes of arriving on American shores at the moment of Mr. Clinton's inauguration Wednesday.
Now, this made Clinton look bad in the press, of course. After spending all that time attacking Bush for being so mean for not letting all those people in and stuff. But Bill Clinton was enough of a human being with REAL COMPASSION that when he realized his mistake, he fixed it as soon as he could when he saw a humanitarian crisis developing. It never occurred to him to just sit back, let it happen, and then try to score political points and power off of the resulting crisis.

Now contrast Clinton's behavior with that of Obama. This current President has pursued his agenda of not enforcing this country's immigration laws for going on 6 years. There is evidence this past January that the DHS was looking for escorts to care for over 60,000 unaccompanied minors at our borders.

Part of the description for the job reads thusly: 

Transport will be required for either category of [Unaccompanied Minors] or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25 percent local ground transport, 25 percent via ICE charter and 50 percent via commercial air. Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC [Unaccompanied Alien Children] from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier) 
Let's see a show of hands: How many readers suppose that was just an extremely lucky GUESS on the part of the DHS that the number of unaccompanied minors would surge to 65,000+?

In other words, this administration knew this deluge of kids at the border was coming even before this year started. And yet Obama & Co. want to pretend they are just as SURPRISED as anybody else at what's happened. They never said a thing about it last year. Or this January. Or February. Or March. It just...SNUCK UP on everybody, you see. 

Except it didn't. Obama didn't just cluelessly walk into a humanitarian crisis here like Clinton did back in 1992. This crisis has been building and growing and coming for some time now, just like every other crisis Obama's mismanaged or ignored until dealing with it either was forced upon him or deigning to notice it suited his political purposes.

Thousands of kids are now homeless and held in camps, hundreds of young girls have been raped, and more than handful likely died making the dangerous trip in a humanitarian crisis that Obama deliberately helped create for his own political purposes. The reason for creating this crisis is to force amnesty on the country by overwhelming the borders, collapsing our present immigration system and then proposing amnesty as the 'solution'.


Forget Karl Marx. You need to learn about THESE people

This is textbook Cloward-Piven theory come to life. C-P was a theory developed by two Columbia University professors back in 1966 that deliberately seeks to collapse societal safety nets & welfare structure in order to foment the advancement of socialism. Can't change the system inside it's Constitutional constraints? No problem! Deliberately overwhelm and crash it then. In the chaos that follows you'll have much better luck getting things where you want them to go.

Once again Progressives have to try to TRICK people to get what they want. They simply WILL NOT come out into the open and honestly argue and debate for their real goals. We've seen it with ObamaCare, we've seen it with Global Warming, and now here again with this manufactured border crisis that Obama is going to use to grab more power for himself.

Sunday, June 29, 2014

13 Times Since 2012 Obama Has Lost Constitutional Cases Before The Supreme Court By Unanimous 0-9 Rulings

Anybody else remember when it was a huge selling point for Obama's supporters back in 2008 that he was a former Constitutional Law lecturer at the University of Chicago? Obama had such a small resume of actual accomplishments that Liberals took to waxing rhapsodic about his grasp of the Constitution.  

Got elected to the Senate! and Wrote two fantastic books about himself! might do it for Progressives, but the rest of the country needed some actual qualifications.  Obama was a 1st term Senator from Illinois who almost immediately began running for President.  Even when he was at the state level in the Illinois legislature it was hard to get a read on him because he voted 'Present' so often instead of casting a vote for or against something. 

So it was with relief that the Progressive Left was able to seize on this one, huge qualification that Obama had to hold the nation's highest office.  The qualification that would give Obama the ability to function in one of the most difficult, demanding jobs in the world was that....he spent several years lecturing on Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  



After the reign of Evil Bush, who according to some missed no chance to shred the Constitution and trample it underfoot, who wouldn't welcome an Executive branch under the control of a man who would strictly adhere to the Constitutional limits on the Presidency? 

At least Bush, whatever excesses he performed in the course of his Presidential duties, was doing so in the prosecution of a War on Terror that was being fought to prevent further 9-11's and keep Americans safe.  

Obama's Constitutional overreaches have been almost totally in the interest of his domestic politics. In this latest slapdown by the Supreme Court, the Obama White House attempted to argue that it was the President's call as to whether Congress was in session or not.  

Short version: Obama was in a hurry to appoint three people to vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] in an attempt to block Boeing from opening up a manufacturing plant in South Carolina.  Obama was playing 100% union politics here.  He knew Congress was not going to approve his 3 appointees for that reason. So he declared Congress was in recess even though it wasn't, and made the appointments. This led to a lawsuit that the Supreme Court just made a ruling on. 

Team Obama's argument before the Supreme Court was - get this - that for over 226 years the President has had the power to declare Congress in session or not & Obama's just the first President to actually exercise it.

And the 0-9 ruling against Obama was: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say it's the President who decides if Congress is in session or not.  PS - go back to law school and pay attention this time.

Even justices appointed to the Court by Obama himself cannot find justification for the positions he's argued before them multiple times now.  When even the Court's most historically liberal justice - Ruth Bader Ginsburg - can't find a way to throw you a vote, you know your argument sucked.  


Why Ruth looks so uncomfortable: "Oh crap, here comes Obama with another lousy argument.
I hate my life."

While Liberals can find some comfort in advancing the claim most of the Obama administrations losses can be traced to 5-4 decisions where the Court's Conservative majority held sway, they have no such luxury for this plethora of 0-9 rulings. 
When he was running for President, if you actually studied what Obama had to say about the founding document of American government, a troubling picture emerged.  Time and again Obama would condescendingly pontificate about how the Founders got this or that wrong in setting up the American Constitutional system, about how that system was full of flaws.  He also stated repeatedly how frustrated he was that most of the flaws he saw had to do with the unfortunate LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT POWERS.  

The more you studied him, the more a paradox emerged: A Constitutional scholar who seem fixated on what he saw as the Constitution's errors and mistakes. You rarely encountered him saying anything positive about it; instead he kept focusing on what needed 'changing'.  

So it didn't exactly take a genius to see where Obama would take the Presidency once he got ahold of it.  And so here we are, where for the 13th time in two years the Supreme Court has pretty much scoffed at this White House & said "Oh, really?!"

It's clear from the rhetoric he engaged in the day of this latest slapdown by the Court that Obama is fully planning to ignore Constitutional constraints.  He's now openly talking about 'borrowing' power from Congress to push amnesty through via executive order.  

It's pretty safe to assume that by the time he finally leaves the White House, Obama's unanimous rebukes from the Supreme Court will reach a high number at the rate he's going.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

IRS That Spent $4.4 BILLION Of 
Taxpayer's Money On IT Claims 
To Have Suffered Over 
2,000 Hard Drive Crashes 
Just *This* Year Alone


"You can't prove anything. We've destroyed all the evidence!"

Sounds like something I made up?  Allow me to establish the facts: 

1.  The IRS got the $4.4 billion bucks in it's budget for IT spending: 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/irs-spent-4-4-billion-on-it/


That's just in the past 5 years under President Obama.  Under the years of George W. Bush's presidency, the agency spent $5.3 billion over 8 years.  If you're keeping score, that's $9.7 billion dollars spent on IT in a 13 year period from 2000 to 2013.

2. The IRS claimed to have suffered over 2,000 hard drive crashes in it's computers just this year alone: 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-23/lois-lerner-s-hard-drive-takes-stage-as-issa-probes-irs


Yes, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen actually claimed to the Congressional committee that the IRS had suffered over 2,000 hard drive crashes just this year: 



Now I don't know about you, but if I took over a government agency, and it was brought to my attention that the agencies computers, on which important federal records are stored, were crashing at a rate of about 333 a month, I'd do something about that.  Like, say, make awful sure people were backing up and printing out those important federal records so as to follow the law regarding such things.  

This, apparently, was the only big IT decision made in the past six months at the IRS: 

IRS Cancels Contract With It's Email Backup Service

Absolutely, that's the first thing I'd do upon being made aware that my agency is beset with crashing computers: I'd cancel the contract of the firm that's backing up our emails n' stuff. 

Another fun fact from Koskinen's testimony this week: upon being asked who told him Lerner's emails were missing, he claimed not to remember.  Think of how unbelievable that is.  He got the job because the former head of the IRS had to step down when the scandal broke.  The investigation by Congress has been going on for over a year.  Now somebody comes into your office & tells you emails under subpoena have been destroyed in a hard drive crash.  I think I'd remember who dumped that huge problem into my lap.  Wouldn't you? 

Of course, the moment Koskinen 'remembers' who told him about the missing emails, that person is going to be subpoenaed to come testify.  Which explains why Koskinen is having memory problems.  

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Whatever Problems The VA Had, Money Wasn't One Of Them:
VA Budget Nearly 
TRIPLED From 2000-2012



As usual when a scandal erupts involving a corrupt, incompetent government agency, the Lefty pushback is that the real problem is a lack of funding.  Everything would be just fine and dandy if only Agency X had gotten more taxpayers money to spend on it's services.  The answer is ALWAYS to make government bigger and more expensive and more powerful. Always.

This is certainly nothing new. Every single time it's pointed out how badly public schools are failing, Democrats dial up their tired excuse that things would be so much better if only we'd increase the funding for public education.  Like spending on public education hasn't tripled in this country since the 1970's.  And yes, that's adjusted for inflation.



When the Benghazi attack happened, the excuse ultimately proffered as to why a diplomatic post in a terrorist hot zone continued to have what little security it possessed stripped from it was that Congress cut the State Department's budget.  As if somehow it wouldn't have been up to the people running the State Department at the time to prioritize their now-reduced budget and eliminate things like $2.5 million to decorate embassies or a $16.5 million contract to buy Kindles [that was later scrapped only AFTER it became public and complaints were made].


Your State Dept. spent $1 million bucks to buy this rock. 

The fact is, as Sean Davis at the Federalist explains in the following chart, the VA's budget almost tripled from 2000 to 2012, going from $45 billion/yr to $124 billion



The real problem the VA has is the same problem that infects every government agency where public employee unions are allowed: full time workers devoting all their focus into how to get more of any new incoming money into the hands of their union members.

That's right. The VA had over 250 full time employees who spent all their days working on nothing but union business.
In total, the VA spent at least $13.77 million [in 2012] on 251 salaried employees performing full-time union work. Others, who were not included on the list provided by the VA, work part-time for unions at the taxpayer expense. In fiscal year 2011, the latest on record, the VA used 998,483 hours of this “official time,” costing taxpayers more than $42 million.
$13.77 million of your tax dollars went to pay for unionized gov't employees who devoted all their time to improving pay, benefits, bonuses, working conditions, & rules and regulations that favor union workers rather than doing anything to improve treatment of our sick veterans.

Unions exist to serve the needs of their union members. PERIOD. Full stop.  End of story.  Whether you're talking about a teacher's union, air traffic controllers or whatever, public employee unions exist to serve their members, NOT THE PUBLIC.  Teacher's unions don't exist to meet the needs of schoolchildren and the VA employee's union most manifestly DOES NOT do a single thing to meet the needs of our veterans.  Time and again I meet people engaging in confused thinking on this issue, as if teacher's unions are looking out for our kids in the public schools or the VA union spends some of it's time looking after veterans.  They don't.   

The VA scandal is really about career 'civil servants' gaming the system and mistreating our veterans with illegal secret waiting lists in order to protect their jobs and score bigger bonuses for themselves.  It's about MONEY, all right, just not in the way Democrats want the public to realize. 

Had the waiting lists remained accurate, it would have become evident how broken and backlogged the VA system was when getting medical treatment to the veterans who needed it.  So the VA employees decided to maintain two different lists: a public list that demonstrated how 'well' the VA system was working, and then a secret, accurate waiting list that reflected the real state of things. 

When the present system is broken, and yet your fortunes are tied to it, there will be a compulsion to cover up problems.  This is exactly what happened here. VA employees avoided all kinds of messy problems that would have forced changes by simply doing some deceptive bookkeeping.   If people got a true sense of how messed up things were at the VA, the present people in charge and working there might not get pay increases, promotions, advancement and so forth.  Better to sweep the sick veterans under the rug and keep the thing chugging along by putting up a facade that things were working splendidly.  

In fact, these corrupt bureaucrats did such a smashingly good job of faking how well the VA was working that Liberal pundits proffered the VA system as a sterling example of how awesomely awesome gov't run health care was going to be for the rest of us

The #1 job of any gov't employee union is: protecting it's members from any accountability.  America is about to get an infuriating education into just how well these unions have gamed the system over the past couple of decades.  

In NYC, the teacher's unions there created such a Byzantine system full of legal regulations and stalling tactics it's become a financial and time-consuming nightmare to fire a dangerous or incompetent teacher.  So the city's politicians have found it cheaper to continue to pay them to do....nothing while their cases drag on indefinitely.

That's right. NYC ends up paying hundreds of dangerous and incompetent teachers millions of dollars a year to sit around all day and play games and watch television.  Because the process of firing a teacher takes years and years to do.  Think I'm joking, that it couldn't possibly be that bad due to the way the teacher's unions have been allowed to set things up? 

I'm not.  

Many people expect heads to start rolling at the VA any minute now that Shinseki has resigned.  But they're in for a shock. Any VA employee found to have engaged in deception with these secret waiting lists who fights to keep their job is going to have a stunning array of legal and financial tools at their disposal, thanks to the union.  Anyone who's followed the long and frustrating stories of attempts to fire unionized government employees knows what's coming.  

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Obama To America's Employers For The Past 3+ Years: Don't Worry About New Costs of ObamaCare; You'll Be Allowed To Put Your Workers Into The Exchanges! 

Obama Today: HA HA, YOU SUCKERS!


The I.R.S. today unveiled a new rule that bars employers from sending their employees into the exchanges to buy their own health insurance. 


WASHINGTON — Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day — or $36,500 a year — for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.
The ruling this month, by the Internal Revenue Service, blocks any wholesale move by employers to dump employees into the exchanges.
Under a central provision of the health care law, larger employers are required to offer health coverage to full-time workers, or else the employers may be subject to penalties.
Well leave it to the NYT's to leave the REAL NEWS out of it's own story.  

"Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange...." - note how the NYT's doesn't spend even one second on where America's employers might have gotten this idea from. 

How about...from the Obama Administration itself, which repeatedly claimed employers would be able to dump their workers into these exchanges for the past 3+ years?  For over 3 years this White House maintained an illusion that employers would have a choice.   Then they waited until the Memorial Day 3-Day weekend in May 2014 to drop this bombshell.  

The MSM has already shown how they are going to help this White House on this issue.  With the NYT's leading the way, they are just going to announce the bare facts & move on with no mention of over 3 years worth of broken promises.  

It's clear the Obama administration intended to do this all along if their argument is that allowing employers to shift workers into the exchanges doesn't 'satisfy the health care law'.  The brazen nerve of these people is infuriating.  They had THREE FREAKING YEARS to speak up about this.  They watched all the debate, the discussion, the numbers crunching, and never breathed a word about their intention to force employers to foot the entire bill. 

Let's see a show of hands. If this administration had told the TRUTH three years  ago and informed America's employers they wouldn't have any choice but to eat the new costs of the ACA themselves with no ability to move workers to the exchanges, who thinks the ACA passes? 

Obama, Sebelius, EVERYONE in this administration lied about EVERYTHING to do with this horrible law.  Can't keep your plan, can't keep your doctor, your new plan costs more, and now another lie bites the dust.  
This latest ObamaCare lie to be exposed will have far-reaching consequences.  Remember all those CBO figures on how many job losses the full ACA implementation would result in? All those figures presumed employers would be able to shift some of the new rising costs by moving workers into the exchanges.  Now that the IRS has barred them from doing that, all those CBO figures are going to have to be redone.  And the projected job losses will now be greatly increased over what was expected before. 

And remember: these pricks in the White House could have spoken up at any time over the past three years & informed the CBO & America's business class that, why, no, in fact they weren't going to allow businesses to send employees into the exchanges.  

It's becoming more clear than ever that EVERYTHING this White House ever said about the ACA is up for grabs.  You can't trust it on anything.  The ACA is whatever they say it is at any given moment.  This is not rule of law, this is exactly what Adam Baldwin said it is in a tweet today: