#4
I don't know what is going on, gov't connections etc, but Bernie Madoff would have damn sure had CVS in his portfolio. Amazing stock growth and profits, absolutely amazing.
#10
In Berkeley, pot is about to become "free of charge" for those making under a certain amount annually - around $32,000 annually for an individual. The dollar amount lost will be covered by jacking the rest of the customers who obviously are members of the 1%
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/05/2014 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Different metrics. Cook'em if you got'em. Total corruption of the bureaucratic system. And then they can't figure out why things keep falling apart and become 'ungovernable'.
#2
Two weeks ago Roberts was leading both Taylor and Orman by anywhere from 5-10 points. Must be the Donks are assuming that all of Taylor's votes will go to Orman. That's not necessarily a slam dunk. A lot can happen in 2 months.
#6
Orman opened with an unusually well produced ad for a nobody no party. With this is smells like snakes!t.
I have not heard anything solid as to why: could be the hassle of reprinting/reprogramming ballots, could be to prevent these shinanigans, likely both counts. Kansas has been tightening up on voter fraud, the most visible being a photo ID is needed to vote.
This district gained attention during the primaries with Wolf vs. Robertson. This is the Dems trying to sneak one in after a energetic Republican primary.
The larger Dem effort seems to be trying to oust Governor Brownback after 1 term. I don't understand that other than as a general ad for State Congress Dems - they got trounced last election - and maybe sneak one in. Like a veto packed Repub Congress, but the Dems would be able to point at it.
*sigh* January, 2017 can't be nearly so far away as it appears...
[WHITEHOUSEDOSSIER] Secretary of State John Kerry today deployed logic to the effect of, God "created the heavens and the earth" and therefore God wants him to stop global warming and especially to do this to help Muslim countries, which are particularly imperiled.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
I like the part where he is up on the campaign trail stage groping John Edwards. It was deeper than friendly football too.
And who can forget the iconic image of Kerry saluting.
They just don't make 'em like that anymore.
Olus Kerry gave the term "swift-boating" to the language. I mean, that's a legacy right there.
Posted by: Big Thromoth3646 ||
09/05/2014 6:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Kerry: God Wants Me to Save Muslim Countries from Global Warming
Oh, Which God?
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/05/2014 11:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And that, friends and neighbors, is the definition of insanity.
#9
For some reason I keep seeing the image of a fly with a defective wing buzzing in tight circles on the floor. It's seared into my memory, I tell yuh!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/05/2014 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
maybe God was for global warming before He was against it
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/05/2014 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Hopefully God will save the rest of us from morons.
[CNSNEWS] One day after the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) released a video showing the brutal beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff--the second American journalist ISIS has decapitated on video--Secretary of State John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat, conqueror of Cambodia, and current Secretary of State... gave a speech saying that Islam is a "peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings," and that ISIS is not "the real face of Islam."
"I want to take advantage of this podium and of this moment to underscore as powerfully as I know how, that the face of Islam is not the butchers who killed Steven Sotloff. That's ISIL," Kerry said at a ceremony honoring Shaarik Zafar, who was just appointed as the State Department's special representative to Moslem communities.
"The face of Islam is not the nihilists who know only how to destroy, not to build," he said. "It's not masked cowards whose actions are an ugly insult to the peaceful religion that they violate every single day with their barbarity and whose fundamental principles they insult with their actions."
"The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings," Kerry said. "It's one where Moslem communities are leading the fight against poverty. It's one where Moslem communities are providing basic healthcare and emergency assistance on the front lines of some of our most devastating humanitarian crises. And it is one where Moslem communities are advocating for universal human rights When they're defined by the state or an NGO they don't mean much... and fundamental freedoms, including the most basic freedom to practice one's faith openly and freely.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
#1
And it is one where Moslem communities are advocating for universal human rights
Oh right. Lets ask the Coptic Christians of Egypt. How about the Christians of Iran or Iraq. When was the last time Iran hoisted up a homosexual by his neck - last week? How about anyone who attempts to leave Islam?
Sorry Jawn - but reality is, once again, calling you a fu*king liar.
Isis is exactly the face is Islam - there is _zero_ difference between how the Prophet, aka the 'PERECT MODEL' according to Islamic scripture, acted back then and how Isis acting today.
#2
"The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings," Kerry said. "It's one where Moslem communities are leading the fight against poverty.
"Leading the fight against poverty".... just like the Champ. We're all on the same team, same starting lineup.
It's hard to say, g(r)omgoru. He's the only Kennedy of his generation who didn't get into Harvard, as far as I know, which suggests he never was the family intellectual.
#9
As long as clowns like SoS Kerry and Clinton who believe "global warming" is our most significant problem, we will continue to have problems with the likes of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
#13
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many
countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages
248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
1 November 2005 - Australia
#15
Islam's a religion of peace,
Unless you eat incorrect grease,
Or don't cut up your junk,
Or think prophets are bunk,
Or don't like Muslims raping your niece.
#1
The tightened restrictions, intended to combat childhood obesity, have driven more than 1 million students away from school lunches and created over $1 billion per year in food waste since they were implemented in 2012.
Wow... it is almost like government programs are ill conceived, wasteful and don't help at all!!
the effect of Dingy Harry and Bumble stacking the courts thru the nuclear option
[CNBC] Obamacare advocates caught a potentially big victory Thursday in an ongoing legal battle to protect billions of dollars worth of subsidies for nearly 5 million people who bought insurance on HealthCare.gov.
A leading federal appeals court Thursday vacated a bombshell decision by a three-judge panel that had threatened to yank those subsidies, and invalidate another major part of Obamacare in 36 states.
That court in Washington, D.C., said its full judicial line-up will rehear arguments on Dec. 17 in that case known as Halbig v. Burwell, where plaintiffs claim the financial aid given customers on the federal insurance exchange HealthCare.gov are illegal under the Affordable Care Act.
The move by the D.C. appeals court, which was requested by the Obama administration, also may well prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to hold off, for now, on considering an appeal of a second, virtually identical case. That could protect the subsidies for at least a year or more.
Legal experts anticipate that December's rehearing by the full court, a so-called en-banc review, will lead to a victory for Obamacare advocates who want to maintain those subsidies.
That's because a majority of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are appointees of Democratic presidents. In contrast, the two appeals judges on the court who voted in late July to invalidate the subsidies were both appointed by Republican presidents, while the one judge who voted to uphold them was a Democratic appointee.
Democratic appointees would hold a three-vote margin in an en-banc review of Halbig. That margin came into effect last winter, when President Barack Obama finally got Senate approval for three of his nominees to that bench over Republican opposition.
The confirmations came only after a dramatic political move by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who forced through a series of rule changes that allowed confirmation of most federal judges to be approved by a simple majority of senators, instead of the former 60-vote rule that Republicans were using to block the nominees.
Elections have consequences. And it is expected that the Republicans will take majorities in both Houses of Congress in November, which will impact future judge confirmations. Separately, there are upward of fifty cases against Obamacare wending their way through the courts. If this one doesn't emasculate it at this stage of the proceedings, that merely postpones things.
The en-banc review panel will include not only the 11 active judges on the circuit, but also the two senior judges who were on the panel that issued the now-vacated decision in July. One of the senior judges, Raymond Randolph, was part of the majority opinion written by active Judge Thomas Griffith that found the subsidies were illegal. The other senior judge on the panel, Harry Edwards, strongly dissented.
Obamacare expert Timothy Jost said it is "quite unusual" for the D.C. Circuit to grant an en-banc review, and suggests that a majority of the judges will reject the challenge to the subsidies.
"They wouldn't have taken a review unless they thought there was something questionable about the opinion" by the three-judge panel, said Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who has repeatedly jousted with advocates of the subsidy challenge.
"And anyone who thinks so is a stoopid poopyhead," he added.
That decision, which came as a stunning blow to the Obama administration, was based on arguments that the Affordable Care Act explicitly authorizes federal subsidies only for people who buy health plans on exchanges set up by individual states.
Because the ACA is silent on any subsidies being issued to enrollees on a federally run exchange, such as HealthCare.gov, such financial aid is not legal, according to a theory advanced by Michael Cannon of the libertarian Cato Institute and Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Just 14 states and the District of Columbia set up Obamacare exchanges--the rest of the country is served by HealthCare.gov.
Obamacare proponents scoff at the plaintiffs' argument, saying that it ignores the overall intent of the ACA, which is to provide affordable health coverage to millions of Americans. They also note that the creation of a federal exchange was contemplated in that law, and that the drafters of the law have said they never intended to deprive enrollees on that exchange of the financial assistance available to state-run exchange customers.
Despite their differences of opinion, both sides of the argument agree that the stakes are immense.
HealthCare.gov sells insurance in the 36 states that did not operate their own exchanges this year, And 4.7 million enrollees on that marketplace--nearly 90 percent of all sign-ups--received financial assistance in the form of subsidies, which often greatly reduced their premiums, as well as their out-of-pocket health costs.
If the original ruling Halbig were to be upheld, it would have several dramatic effects.
First, those people would lose their subsidies. Second, many of those people would then become exempt from Obamacare's mandate that they obtain health insurance as of this year or pay a penalty, because the ACA exempts people whose insurance options cost more than a certain percentage of their incomes.
On the other hand, some people who didn't qualify for that exemption would be faced with significantly higher premiums, which they would have to pay or be liable for a tax penalty equal to 2 percent of their income. The consultancy Avalere Health in July, before the Halbig decision came down, estimated that subsidized HealthCare.gov customers would face premium hikes of a whopping 76 percent on average if they lost their subsidies.
Lastly, a decision finding HealthCare.gov subsidies illegal would destroy, in the affected states, Obamacare's so-called employer mandate, which beginning next year will require medium- and large-sized employers to offer workers affordable health plans or pay a fine. That mandate only kicks in if a worker of those employers buys subsidized coverage from an exchange.
On the same day Halbig was decided in July by the D.C. Circuit, another case challenging the subsidies was rejected by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia, in a 3-0 decision that found the aid is legal.
Plaintiffs in that case had recently asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that ruling. At the time, there was still a split between the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit on the legality of the subsidies.
But without any such split--as is the case now with the D.C. court's move--the Supreme Court is considered much less likely to take an appeal, particularly if an en-banc review is still pending, like it is in D.C.
A senior Obama administration official called Thursday's decision by the D.C. Circuit to rehear Halbig "an important and welcome next step in the process of the Halbig case."
"The 2-1 decision of the panel was wrong, and we are confident that the full court will recognize that the text of the statute, the clear intent of Congress and common sense all demonstrate that premium tax credits are available to Americans in every state--as a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit has already concluded," the official said.
"These lawsuits won't stand in the way of the Affordable Care Act and the millions of Americans who can now afford health insurance because of it. In the meantime, to be clear, people getting premium tax credits should know that nothing has changed as this case makes its way through the courts; tax credits remain available."
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the group that is coordinating and funding the legal challenges to the subsidies, said that the Supreme Court should ultimately decide the issue.
"We believe we are correct on the merits in this case," said CEI general counsel Sam Kazman. "As even the Fourth Circuit noted when it ruled against us in the King v. Burwell case, our position is supported by the text of the Affordable Care Act, and we intend to present our arguments forcefully before the full D.C. Circuit."
"Meanwhile, in the King case, our petition for review is before the Supreme Court, and we continue to believe that it is the only court that can resolve this issue in the quick and final manner that the country deserves," Kazman said.
Cannon, one of the intellectual godfathers of the challenges to the subsidies, quickly posted a reaction to the court's move on his Forbes.com blog.
"Today's decision by the D.C. Circuit to grant en-banc review of Halbig v. Burwell is unwise and unfortunate," Cannon wrote. "It has the appearance of a political decision, and will likely only delay Supreme Court review. It does not necessarily presage the outcome of these cases, and I predict that even if the administration wins, it will lose ground before the full D.C. Circuit."
"It is more likely that en-banc review of Halbig will delay Supreme Court review of this issue than obviate it. The same factor that made Halbig a candidate for en-banc rehearing--its 'exceptional importance'--makes it an equally likely candidate for Supreme Court review," Cannon wrote.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court gave the Obama administration another month, until the beginning of October, to respond to the request by the plaintiffs in the King case that the high court hear their appeal.
There is no legal right for a losing party to be heard by the Supreme Court. The high court decides which appeals to hear.
Even if the Supreme Court ends up punting on the issue for now, the matter could eventually land before the high court via another avenue. Two other federal district court challenges to the subsidies have been filed, one in Indiana and the other in Oklahoma. Neither has been decided at the district level as of yet.
The side that loses those cases would have the right to appeal any ruling to the appellate court level. And then the loser on the appellate level could, as the subsidy challengers in the King case did, ask the Supreme Court to review any adverse decision.
#4
They've admitted that the subsidies violate the letter of the law, but that doesn't matter, because they don't violate what the law should have said. Words mean what they want them to mean and change meaning whenever they change what they want. When is a tax a tax?
#6
This most likely will NOT go to Scotus. The appeals court in Richmond sided with the administration. The DC appeals court, after the en banc hearing, also will side with the administration. There is no circuit split and therefore Scotus will decline to review.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2014 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They will drag this out until Eric Holder is on the Supreme Court.
#10
They do indeed have something on Roberts: his children.
He and his lovely wife adopted their two lovely blue eyed, blonde-haired children of Irish ancestry. In Guatemala.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/05/2014 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I agree the administration must have Roberts by the short and curlies somehow. His sudden switch in May 2012 just can't be explained any other way.
But, so, Roberts and his wife may have broken applicable adoption law. Like many adoptive parents do. So what? Not exactly a capital offense. Not seeing how it could be used to force him to resign. Am I missing something?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[CNSNEWS] One day after the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) released a video showing the brutal beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff--the second American journalist ISIS has decapitated on video--Secretary of State 
