BUCKEYE FIREARMS: Stay up-to-date on gun laws, politics, and events. Plus get the Grassroots Action Guide FREE!
Florida: Letter to the Leon County Commissioners Stating Ordinance Could Lead to Gun Ban and/or Confiscation
Is it too late for people to get back their health insurance policies that have already been cancelled by Obamacare?
Insurance industry sources say that it’s likely too late to undo the cancellation notices that already have gone out, meaning the Upton bill is unlikely to actually restore coverage. . . .This might be different if the regulatory system let insurance companies do what they want, but that is hardly the case. However, what I would say is that a lot of employer plans are going to be cancelled over the course of the coming year and those cancelations can still be fixed.
Fox News Poll: By a 55 to 38 percent margin Americans think that Obama "tried to deceive" them about Obamacare
Independents believe that Obama has tried to deceive Americans about the Obamacare by a 51 to 34 percent margin. One bizarre note is that those with a college degree don't feel that Obama has been deceptive as much as those without a degree. Younger people and higher income people also thought that Obama was "knowingly lied" to people. Click to make larger.
Few people approve of the job that Obama is doing on the issues.
It is true that only two universities were examined, but most of the rest of the statements are misleading or wrong.
1) While both schools tended to have relatively low total African-American enrollment, the point of the study was to examine how students did as they went from one class to another. In some of their classes there were few black students, but in others they made up fairly high percentages of the students in those classes. So it wasn't that the schools lacked data to study critical mass. There is a very large range of percentage of black students in these classes.
2) It is simply false to claim "their model do not incorporate other potential explanatory variables that could affect grades, such as the imposition of a mandatory grade curve or the skills tested on examinations." The estimates accounted for fixed effects for student, class, professor and semester. Those fixed effects will pick up all the differences across how different teachers teach and across different classes. The paper also explains out the grade curve issue biases the results against the results that we found.
3) Neither the brief of Scholars of Economics and Statistics nor the paper with Ramseyer or Standen "neglect" or hide the one result for Asian Americans that there is a benefit to Asians from more Asians. In the brief it is noted: "Only for Asians was there evidence that increasing their share of the class after they exceed their share of the applicant pool increased their grades, but the effect was exceedingly small."
4) There is no other evidence that directly tests the critical mass claim. If one believes the American Educational Research Association Amicus brief, they don't even appear to think that the "critical mass hypothesis" is testable because they don't even think that there is an identifiable "critical mass."
Spike Lee has been sued by an elderly couple in Florida, whose address he incorrectly identified as the home of Trayvon Martin killer George Zimmerman, according to court documents obtained by the Smoking Gun. The suit claims the “Do the Right Thing” director tweeted out the Florida address along with George Zimmerman’s name in March 2012 to his 240,000-plus Twitter followers. “While defendant intended to post the home address of George Zimmerman, he actually posted the address of plaintiffs Elaine McClain and David McClain,” the complaint reads. “I don’t give a f— what you think kill that Bitch,” one Spike Lee follower wrote. “HERE GO HIS ADDRESS, LET THE HUNGER GAMES BEGIN.” . . .The couple whose address was given out are suing for "in excess" of $15,000 in damages.
Senate Republicans blocked another one of President Barack Obama’s nominees to a key appellate court, enraging Democrats and further raising the prospects of a battle over changing the rules that govern the chamber. . . . White House press secretary Jay Carney portrayed the persistent GOP resistance to Obama’s D.C. Circuit picks as nothing short of historic. . . .Roll Call magazine:
Democrats inched closer to another “nuclear” rules standoff Tuesday evening on the heels of another filibuster vote on one of President Barack Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Several Democratic senators, led by Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, met with reporters late Tuesday with another round of warnings about the chances that not filling the seats on the appellate court could lead to a “nuclear option” rules debate. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There comes a tipping point, and I’m afraid we’ve reached that tipping point,” Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois said at the news conference. “We cannot ask people in good faith to submit their names and reputations to this judicial process if they’re going to be treated so unfairly and unjustly by the Republicans and their filibusters.” . . .From The Hill newspaper:Reid “is willing” to change the rules but “the question is whether the leader can get 50 Democrats, not 49 or 48, to sustain that motion.” . . . . For the first time, Reid has the strong backing of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who had been leery about weakening the power to filibuster judicial nominees. “I’m glad that I’m not the only one out talking about this,” Reid said last week when asked about the possibility of rules reform. “We have someone who [has] never, ever been upfront on rules changes — that’s Sen. Leahy, who said he’s really disturbed about what’s going on.” Leahy’s support might help Reid persuade wavering colleagues to strip Republicans of the power to filibuster judicial picks. “He has the backing of Sen. Leahy, which is huge for this. That’s a really important step,” said a Senate Democratic aide. Reid came close to triggering the so-called nuclear option in July after Republicans held up Obama’s picks to executive branch agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board. He backed off the threat after Republicans allowed the nominees to go through. . . . .Reid came close to triggering the so-called nuclear option in July . . . The Huffington Post has statement from Biden:
Vice President Joe Biden, long a defender of tradition in the United States Senate, said Thursday it might be time to change the institution's rules after Republicans blocked yet another one of President Barack Obama's nominees. "I think it's worth considering," Biden said after the GOP nixed the appointment of Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) to oversee the Federal Housing Finance Agency. . . . Democrats have recently been pushing gutting the filibuster over the debt limit.
Liberals said Tuesday that there may be no other way out of a debt ceiling crisis than to invoke — or at least threaten to employ — the so-called nuclear option, an enormously contentious move that would allow the party to raise the national borrowing limit with 51 votes rather than 60. Such a move would prompt howls of outrage from Republicans and could have dramatic implications for the future of the Senate. But it would allow Senate Democrats to pass a bill raising the borrowing limit through 2014 and shift the burden to the House GOP before a potentially devastating default on the $16.7 trillion national debt on Oct. 17. . . . Strangely, it isn't clear what the benefit is for Democrats to change this given that the Republicans control the House.
UPDATE: The National Journal indicates that it looks as if the Democrats now have the votes to push through the "nuclear option."
The newspaper’s latest financial results show that this is still the case: although the Times has seen further growth in subscriptions, its overall revenue barely budged, and much of that lack of movement was due to continued declines in the paper’s advertising revenue — both in the print version and online. . . .
American voters say 52 – 44 percent that Obama is not honest and trustworthy, but they don't think that Obama knowingly deceived them on keeping their insurance plans
"We knew that there would be some policies that would not qualify and therefore people would be required to get more extensive coverage."Here is something from CNBC:
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, "40 to 67 percent" of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, "the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range." That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, "if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan," was still saying in 2012, "If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.". . .Megan Kelly has a very powerful discussion available here.
So is it only that Americans haven't followed the evidence here? From Quinnipiac University Poll (November 12, 2013):
For the first time today, American voters say 52 – 44 percent that Obama is not honest and trustworthy. His previous lowest marks on honesty were May 30, when 49 percent of voters said he was honest and 47 percent said he wasn’t. . . .Only 19 percent of American voters say the quality of care they and their families receive will improve in the next year because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while 43 percent say it will get worse and 33 percent say ACA won’t affect their health care. Voters oppose the ACA 55 – 39 percent, with men opposed 59 – 37 percent and women opposed 51 – 41 percent. American voters are divided 46 – 47 percent on whether Obama “knowingly deceived” the public when he said people could keep their existing health insurance plans if they wished. Voters also support 73 – 20 percent extending the March 31, 2014 deadline for signing up for coverage without facing a penalty. “President Obama’s misstatement, ‘If you like your health plan, you can keep it,’ left a bad taste with a lot of people. Nearly half of the voters, 46 percent, think he knowingly deceived them,” Malloy said. . . .
One of the vacancies Democrats are trying to fill used to be held by John Roberts. After he became chief justice, Bush nominated the impeccably qualified Peter Keisler for the spot. The Democrats blocked him, and the seat has gone empty ever since. A reasonable case can be made against a minority party blocking judicial nominations, or for it. What can’t reasonably be argued is that Democrats should be able to use the tactic to keep a judgeship open until they have the power to fill it with a liberal, at which point Republicans have to stand down. . . .
Question: if a two cent tax on newspapers and requiring an ultrasound before abortions are deemed unconstitutional infringements on rights, what about everything required for guns?
For abortions, requiring an ultrasound before an abortion is deemed to impose to great of a burden on those seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court just turned down an appeal from the state of Oklahoma on this issue.
The rejected Ultrasound Act stipulated that at least one hour before an abortion physicians must 1). perform an ultrasound 2). explain what it depicts 3). show the pregnant woman 4). provide a medical description “which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity...the presence of external members and internal organs….”Interestingly, ultrasounds are generally promoted as being simple for women. During the "first trimester fetal ultrasound typically takes between 15 and 20 minutes" and during the "second trimester ultrasound, completed between 18 and 22 weeks, is usually the longest procedure, lasting 30 to 45 minutes." The typical cost of an ultrasound is "around $200."
So, are a woman's reproductive rights greater than a woman's right to her own life?
Yet, in Washington, DC it takes 5 hours of training to get a license and register a gun. One must also take a 20-question exam on DC's firearms laws and regulations. You must also give your fingerprints and submit a pre-owned firearm for ballistics testing at the office. Additional cost include having to take the forms in in person. The total dollar cost is over $500.
Alito in Chicago v. McDonald: "In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Scalia in Heller also referred to these rights as "fundamental."
Bottom line: How can a 20 minute test that costs $200 be deemed of as imposing an undue burden on a right, but a 5 hour training requirement and many hours of filing out forms and delivering them plus over $500 in fees not be considered such a burden? How can a 2 percent tax on newspaper be deemed abridging the First amendment but what could easily be over a 100 percent tax on a gun be viewed as OK?