[AUDIO] TRUMP: ‘FIVE DIFFERENT SOURCES’ SAY MEXICO IS SENDING PEOPLE TO THE US

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that “five different sources” told him that Mexico’s government is sending people to the US on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC.

Trump was asked, “Do you believe that Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers?” He said, “Illegal immigrants are causing tremendous problem[s] coming in. I want legal immigrants, illegal immigrants are causing tremendous problems, Mika. There’s crime. It’s a crime wave. It’s a disaster. Do I believe many people — I mean, look, as far as I’m concerned, I hire, I have hundreds and hundreds of Mexicans working for me. I love Mexican people. I love their spirit. The problem we’re having with Mexico is that their government officials and negotiators are far smarter than ours, like from a different planet. And they are negotiating deals, trade deals, the border, everything else. We are getting the short end of the stick in every single instance. And we are having a big problem. Let me just tell you just to finish, Mexico is sending a lot of their people over that they don’t want. And that includes people that should be in Mexican prisons and you know it and I know it and nobody wants to talk about it.”

Trump was then asked how he knew the Mexican government is sending people to the US, he said, “Because I heard from five different sources. And if you speak to the border guards, who I’ve spoke to many of, if you speak to border guards, and these guys are terrific. They’re almost crying, they’ve almost got tears in their eyes when they explain that they’re not allowed to do their job.”

After he was asked by panelist Mark Halperin what these five sources were, Trump stated, “I’ll reveal my sources when you reveal your sources, Mark. I have a lot of information on it, and so does everyone else. And you probably do, too. And for some reason they don’t want to put out this information. Mexico — and if you remember, many years ago when Fidel Castro opened [his] prisons and sent the people over, and everybody knew it. We never sent them back. We took these — all of these prisoners. Mexico, in a far more sophisticated way, is doing something very similar. They’re sending tremendously — you look at the man that killed Kate. You look at Jamiel, Jamiel Shaw, you look at so many — thousands of instances where illegals are coming in, and it’s a crime wave. And, frankly, Mexico doesn’t care, from the standpoint that they don’t want to house these people for a long period of time in their prisons. They say, ‘Let the United States take care of them. Let the United States put them in their jails. Why should we pay for it?’ And believe me it’s happening, and it’s happening big league, and this country doesn’t know.”

Earlier, Trump said of the Iran deal, “It’s a ridiculous deal. Even a thing like, you know, nuclear’s so important, and stopping nuclear proliferation, which this deal, I think will enhance, but so important. But something like at the beginning, when they were discussing it, we had three prisoners. We now have four prisoners. Automatically you say, ‘Listen, not going to do you any good. Release the prisoners.’ We’d send a great signal to everybody, you don’t care about them, but we do, important for the United States, just release the prisoners. Now, if that’s delivered by right messenger, they would have done it a long time ago. Amazingly, they — I don’t even think that Kerry brought it up. It sounds like he never even brought it up. He said one thing has nothing to do with the other. The other thing is giving billions and billions of dollars to them, releasing the money before you even do the deal, where they’re getting billions of dollars, they are going to be so rich and so powerful. And when you talk about the deal itself, anytime, anywhere, you have to go in and inspect anytime anywhere. Now, they have a 24-day notice provision. Give a 24-day notice to go in and inspect? I think it’s made by people that are incompetent. And it might very well get by, because probably the veto is, you know, it’s going to be — he’s in pretty good shape in terms of that. But I think it’s a disgrace. And we should have doubled up the sanctions, and we should have made a deal where they caved. We were dealing from desperation. We look so desperate, and it’s a disgrace. … I love the idea of a deal, by the way, but it’s not a well-negotiated deal. We should have doubled up the sanctions and made a much better deal.”

Trump was then asked if he’d read the deal, he answered that he had “seen the deal,” had “seen it broken down in every newspaper you can imagine” and had read “the good points and the bad points. And the good points aren’t very strong.” Trump was then questioned about whether the US could have held the sanctions together, he responded, “If you had a president that was a leader, he would be able. He can’t even talk. When you look at where we are with countries, with — as an example, with Russia, they can’t even talk together. Putin can’t stand him, in all fairness, he can’t stand Putin. But Putin doesn’t respect him. It’s about leadership. You have to hold the sanctions together. And if they — if we had the right leadership, it would be something much different. You know, Russia is a big beneficiary of this deal. There are numerous places that are going to be big beneficiaries of this deal.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

LOS ANGELES: Sun, Wind, Dust and Salaries Drive DWP Rate Hikes

Imagine you are dining in a restaurant with a dozen other people and the governor of California. While you are studying the menu, the governor starts ordering for the table.

Platters arrive, and glasses are filled … and more platters and more refills.

Then the check comes.

You know how the rest of the evening goes. Who ordered the market-price renewable energy? Who ordered the coal-free electricity? Who had the rainbow smelt? How much did you put in? We’re still short. Does that include the tip? Tax is HOW much?!

For customers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the bill has just arrived. Over the next five years, ratepayers will have to shell out an additional $230 million for water and another $900 million for power. Three-quarters of the new money for power is needed to meet state mandates — including the Governor’s Special, a requirement to use 33 percent renewable energy by 2020.

Electricity rates will go up 3 percent per year for the “typical residential” user of 500 kilowatt hours per month. It’s worse for businesses: “Small commercial” users will see their power costs rise 3.8 percent per year, and rates for “high-use residential” customers who consume 900 kilowatt hours per month will shoot up 4.7 percent per year — plus taxes.

The DWP says 85 percent of the additional $230 million in water revenues — a 3.8 percent annual hike for “typical” users — will go toward “infrastructure repair and replacement” and “water quality.” But a big slice of that — 4 percent overall — will go to pay for the Owens Lake Dust Mitigation Project. That’s our DWP-negotiated penance for the construction of the 100-year-old Los Angeles Aqueduct. Since 2000, the DWP has been pouring 25 billion gallons per year of water — drinking water — on a dry lakebed to hold down dust, at a cost to L.A. ratepayers of $1.3 billion. In November, the DWP reached a settlement that allows the use of less water-intensive dust control methods, cutting the annual water use to 22 billion gallons in 2014 but doubling the annual cost to $217 million.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Hillary Clinton Declares War on Worker Choice and Consumer Convenience

Hillary Clinton this morning at a speech in Manhattan's New School laid out what's hyped as the heart of her economic message.

One aspect cemented her efforts to brand the Democratic Party she is apparently the inevitable leader of as the party of reaction, regression, and making the world harder on everyone in the defense of entrenched interests—all hidden under a thin veneer of "helping out the little guy at the expense of the big guy."

She, as the Huffington Post reported:

alluded to companies like Uber, saying she'd crack down on businesses that classify their workers as independent contractors in order to avoid providing benefits.

"This 'on demand' or so-called 'gig economy' is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation but it’s also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future," she said.

In this she is echoing the complaints of American union leaders.

I wrote a big feature for Reason's November 2014 issue about government efforts to restrict or stymie app-driven ride hiring services such as Uber and Lyft. In reporting it I talked to many drivers directly and read the online discussions and kvetching of many, many others.

Almost universally one of the big selling points of being a driver is the flexibility of the relationship between driver and app company; that you can work largely when you want without having to follow a set and largely unyielding schedule imposed on you from above. That's very much unlike standard full-time employment which, with some caveats, locks you into working a set number of hours in set blocks all the way down the line. 

As Flint, Michigan, Uber driver Hunter Lawrence (she also has a chauffeur's license and has been a driver-for-hire pre-Uber) told me today in a written interview, she's been happy enough with the steady 80 percent cut of fares she's gotten, and is against the idea of becoming a "real employee."

Why? "Being a contractor allows me the freedom to make my own schedule, wear my own "uniform", drive my own high-end vehicle, get multiple tax write offs, and so much more. I drive with Uber and Lyft full time because I am a contractor. If this changes, I will leave them immediately." 

She certainly doesn't feel like Uber treats her like an employee: "For the most part the company doesn't care when or how often I work, as long as I complete at least one ride per two weeks. If I don't, my account is suspended. This can be avoided by contacting them and telling them that I'm on "vacation", though."

Some people who apparently didn't really understand what they were getting into, or were just professional troublemakers or provocateurs, have sued to claim they ought to be classified as employees and managed like them, not be independent contractors, trying to do Hillary's work for her in the courts.

Uber has reacted to that lawsuit, and as The Hill reported last week:

Uber also said the three plaintiffs did not represent the majority of drivers, who the company said appreciated working as contractors.

“Plaintiffs, three individual drivers, seek an outcome that many, if not most, proposed class members oppose — a classwide determination that would destroy the very independence and flexibility that countless drivers love about Uber,” the company said in its filing with the court.

To bolster its case, Uber submitted declarations made by more than 400 drivers who support their contractor status.

“I extremely value the flexibility that Uber gives me because for the last 30 years I've worked independently,” said Larry Adams, who drives in the San Francisco Bay Area. “I worked briefly on an employee basis and I didn't like the control the employer had over me.”

The company also submitted to the court testimony from a University of California, Berkeley, economist Justin McCrary — who examined the declarations made by the drivers.

“Each driver’s relationship with Uber is unique,” he wrote. “This is not unexpected; indeed, I am not aware of any evidence that Uber exercises control uniformly, reserves the right of control uniformly, or has any uniform policy describing control over the physical conduct of drivers’ work.”

Clinton and the Democrats need to realize that these services are generating at least half a billion in income for the over 160,000 Americans who choose to be drivers, as well as adding unquantifiable but huge improvements in the quality of life of the services' customers. Research shows that about a quarter have Uber as their sole source of income, and only 8 percent were unemployed entirely before starting with Uber.

Because of the manifold advantages to drivers and customers, they are quite popular with a class of urban professionals the Democrats should not go out of their way to alienate.

While I am not a programmer and cannot speak authoritatively to the technological possiblities, if a more decentralized and peer-to-peer system of connected peer-rated service providers and customers with rides (or anything else) is possible, one that merely skims something more like micropayments (or perhaps even just a one-time app purchase or membership fee) rather than a hefty 20 percent of the payments, it will eventually drive your Ubers and Lyfts off the stage as they will, if allowed to, drive the traditional regulated taxi model off the stage. 

It's a radically uncertain world for everyone but consumers out there, and no one can consider market control or profits a given minus political clout. But we are all consumers, and progress toward getting human needs met easier and cheaper is a good thing, even if Clinton doesn't quite grok that and thinks her would-be voters don't either.

But "cheaper" will often mean that profits that used to be readily available to concentrated interests (whether "big corporate" or individual provider) won't be available anymore. For Hillary and the Democrats to fight on the side of those concentrated interests is as pure an example of being on the "wrong side of history" and progress as one could imagine.

Everything about techno-modernity is moving toward things being cheaper and more widely and easily available to consumers, as long as people like Hillary Clinton don't stand in the way.

Hillary's anti-"gig economy" stance is alas probably going to be a decent selling point for her for some, especially for the vast majority who don't work such jobs, relying on a basic "let's help the little guy" desire to make corporations give more and the ol' working (wo)man to get more.

But that basic motivation can led to all sort of mischief and lost opportunities for would-be workers and frustrated customers.

Bonus awful Uber and politics story of today: Los Angeles cops are actively wasting time entrapping Uber drivers by tricking them into accepting illegal instant street flag ride requests, as opposed to the legal-in-California use of the app. Appallingly stupid waste of police time.

Reason TV on the sharing economy and its political fights:

Via: Reason

Continue Reading....

Massachusetts topping the list of “energy expensive” states

CHICOPEE, Mass. (WWLP)– Keeping energy costs down can be a challenge.

“Yeah we try to save money. Installing new windows and new doors, and new installation and stuff like that too,” Ron Staslowski, from Chicopee, told 22News about how his family tries to save on energy costs.

Now, the latest Wallethub study shows that Massachusetts now ranks 3rd overall as the most energy expensive state in the nation.

Specifically, the study found that Massachusetts ranks in the top five most expensive states for heating your home using oil.

The study also found Massachusetts is in the top 20 most states expensive for fuel costs, and is in the top 10 most expensive states for electricity costs.

Eversource Energy spokeswoman Priscilla Ress told 22News that as the summer heats up there are some inexpensive ways to keep electricity costs down each month.

“You want to be sure that you’re running that air conditioner as efficiently as possible. You want to make sure that the unit is clean, that there is nothing that is blocking the flow of that cold air,” Ress said.

Ress also told 22News to be sure the air conditioner you use is the right size for the room you’re trying to cool.

Other money saving tips include making sure the seal around your refrigerator door is effective. You can also keep your shades down during the day to keep the sun’s heat out, and open up your windows at night to allow the cool air in.

Via: 22-WWLP NY

Continue Reading...

Whatabooboo: Public, press fall for Moms Demand Action misdirection on Whataburger and guns

There’s a lot of politicizing and anger over Whataburger’s decision to not allow open carry inside its restaurants. Moms Demand Action is proclaiming from the rooftops it was their advocacy which caused Whataburger to end open carry.

Whataburger initially prohibited open carry last June after the Texas chapter of Moms Demand Action repeatedly urged the company to change its policy through social media and by making numerous calls to the corporate headquarters.

There’s just one problem with this statement: it might be a lie. There’s no actual mention on either Whataburger’s website or Moms Demand Action’s website of an open carry ban in June 2014. It doesn’t exist. There’s no mention of Whataburger banning open carry on either website in June 2015. In fact, Whataburger President and CEO Preston Atkinson says the open carry ban has existed for a long time (emphasis mine):

Whataburger supports customers’ Second Amendment rights and we respect your group’s position, but we haven’t allowed the open carry of firearms in our restaurants for a long time (although we have not prohibited licensed conceal carry). It’s a business decision we made a long time ago…

It would be nice if Atkinson defined “a long time,” but it’s important to note he made sure to point out no specific group caused the policy to be put in place. Atkinson even says customers and employees didn’t want to see people openly carry who weren’t law enforcement. That doesn’t completely blow the Moms Demand Action narrative out of the water, but it does make it a little less likely Moms Demand had major involvement in the decision. If Atkinson is lying, there’s no evidence of it at the moment.

Sadly, the reaction by the mainstream media and the right is almost as bad as MDA’s, if not worse. The AP claimed, “Whataburger takes stand against Texas’ new open carry law,” without providing any factual evidence. Their story flat-out ignores Atkinson’s “a long time” and “we have not prohibited licensed conceal carry” statements.  Newsweek was just as bad with its headline “Whataburger to Armed Customers: Keep Your Guns at Home,” which is entirely false. Concealed carry is welcomed in Whataburger, as the company said in their statement. People on the right took to Twitter saying Whataburger was “defying TX law” by not allowing open carry and claimed they were being anti-Texan. They also promised to boycott Whataburger and take their service to another burger chain. But that’s buying into the possible lie by Moms Demand Action hook, line, and sinker without bothering to make sure it was true. It’s just sad how people reacted instead of looking at the details.

There needs to be a little historical perspective on Texas and guns. The state didn’t allow concealed carry until 1995. In fact, Ann Richards lost the 1994 governor’s election to George W. Bush because of her veto of a concealed carry bill. That bill was introduced after the infamous 1991 Luby’s shooting in Killeen, which left 23 dead. Suzanna Hupp, the anti-Shannon Watts who later became a Texas state representative, told the Legislature she probably could have stopped the Luby’s shooting if the law allowed her to concealed carry. Her gun was in her car 100 feet away from where she was in Luby’s when bullets started flying. So Texas’ gun-friendly legislative attitude has only existed for 20 years.

Whataburger doesn’t get much credit for welcoming customers practicing concealed carry in their restaurants, which considering the current climate is pretty amazing. They’re still gun friendly, even if they’re wrong on open carry, but that’s a business decision based on customer response, as Atkinson correctly notes. It’s well within Whataburger’s right to say no to open carry, but yes to concealed carry, because they’re a private business.

There’s an even bigger point to all this everyone needs to realize and remember. The left’s Whataburger stance shows just how hypocritical they actually are. They’re perfectly fine with Whataburger not allowing open carry, but look at how absolutely bonkers they go and lose their collective minds when private businesses give answers which don’t fit the left’s agenda. Remember how they reacted to Memories Pizza in Indiana or Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon? The private businesses were excoriated for acting like a private business. Memories Pizza temporarily closed. Sweet Cakes was sued and shut down. Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver is facing a similar suit for denying service. The left will cheer on companies for appearing to go along with them, but they’ll run for the lawyers if companies don’t. The right has to be willing to point this stuff out and make the left defend their hypocrisy. Put them on the defensive. Turn the questions around. Force the left to actually get outside their, “oh we’ve got a friendly media which will always defend us” and actually have to provide a response. The biggest part of the entire Whataburger thing isn’t the private business’ stance on open carry. It’s showed just how hypocritical the left actually is.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading....

Kenya to try teaching Obama lessons in Anatomy

Hello, Kenya!  The five thousand naked men and women, waiting to greet President Barack Obama when he visits his alleged “home” country, won’t change his “open and aggressive support for homosexuality” an iota.

With the nude welcoming committee, Kenya’s Republican Liberty Party seeks to show Obama the difference between men and women—in their birthday suits.

The party said it has already notified the authorities of the protest scheduled to hold on July 22 and 23, coinciding with the U.S. president’s visit to Kenya. (Premium Times, July 14, 2015)

“Vincent Kidala, the party’s leader, wrote to the Police on Monday to notify the authorities of the planned protest march from Nairobi’s Freedom Corner to the streets of the capital.

“He said the protest would involve “totally naked men and women” to “demonstrate the difference between men and women.”


Dude: If Obama didn’t learn that simple fact of life in more than 20 years at Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he’s not likely to learn anything from the 5,000 planning to disrobe for his arrival in Kenya.

As far as Obama is concerned, homosexuals, still celebrating the legalizing of same sex marriage in all 50 U.S. states,  are in,  and anyone who would dare to object an out-and-out “homophobe”, dressed or undressed.

To Obama, who is tepid on most things Christian,  Adam and Eve could have been transgendered at any time, including now.  It’s as simple as sex change operations for 15-year-old teens in Oregon.  Calling him “courageous” Obama’s all but laid a laurel wreath on the head of Bruce Jenner, America’s most famous transgender, who after 65 years of life on earth as a dude,  the media world now calls “Caitlyn”.

Irony can be found in the fact that as many as 5,000 Kenyans are willing to protest naked when Caitlyn’s only dressing in the part of the transgendered as Jenner continues to appear in a parade of fashion togs, and never in the nude.

Be aware, Mr. Kidala, that Obama is walking proof of the age old proverb. “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

According to the ‘Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings’ this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’). In 1738 it was used by Jonathan Swift in his ‘Polite Conversation’ and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 ‘Works of Thomas Chalkley’. The full saying is: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’.  (Actual Freedom)

Meanwhile Obama’s “open and aggressive support for homosexuality” is one of the few open things about him.

Wishing Kenya clement weather on July 22 and 23.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

The Big Gay Lie

While gays are our siblings in Christ, the gay lifestyle is nothing like the straight lifestyle. That’s why we have to condemn the gay lifestyle because we love gays as people, just as we condemn smoking out of love for smokers.

One of the key reasons that gay “marriage” has won as much public support as it has is that few people understand how harmful the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle is. 

The Big Gay Lie (BGL) is that the gay lifestyle is the same as the straight lifestyle. The BGL has a number of facets including:

• Lots of people are gay
• Gay relationships are just like straight ones; they want long-term commitment
• Being gay isn’t bad for your health
• Gays are born that way

The BGL has made the debate over gay marriage like a debate about smoking where no one realizes that smoking causes lung cancer.

Before looking at what scientific studies tell us here’s some anecdotal evidence that people may already be familiar with:

• When AIDS first struck gays fought tooth and nail to keep the bathhouses -- where gays go for anonymous sex with strangers -- open. Gays are so addicted to sex that even in the face of a fatal disease they didn’t want to curb their promiscuous lifestyle.
• AIDS. While we’re constantly told that it’s not a gay disease the reality is that in the U.S. almost no one but gays get AIDS from sex. Yet even though condoms don’t stop the spread of AIDS gays continue to risk their lives to have sex with strangers
• While everyone condemns crimes by priests and ministers against children, the fact is that 81% of the victims of priests have been young boys; the problem is a gay one.
• NAMBLA -- which advocates sex with 3 year olds -- is an accepted part of the gay community. The organization marched in the SF Gay Pride parade for years before pressure from straights got the organization booted out due to bad optics.

Very few people are gay:

The debate about gay marriage has been skewed by a gross misrepresentation of the number of gays in America. While the average American thought 23% of Americans were gay the real number is 1.6% with only 3.8% of the population being LGBT.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

The Insiders: The Democrats’ doctrine of ‘government is the solution’ is in tatters

The Obama administration is a case study in mismanagement. Republican presidential candidates should remind voters that management matters. And it isn’t just about government process. People have lost faith in our politics and government. The next president needs to work tirelessly to restore voters’ faith in our government’s ability to function. What part of the federal government is working better than it did six years ago? The Democratic Party’s fundamental doctrine that “government is the solution” is in tatters.

The failure to produce “shovel-ready” projects, the IRS targeting malfeasance, the calamity of the Obamacare roll-out, the bungling of the Fast and Furious operation, the mass confusion surrounding the enforcement of America’s southern border, the Veterans Affairs neglect, the lack of transparency in the White House, the bewildering events surrounding the Secret Service, the oblivious Office of Personnel Management, the tolerance of “sanctuary cities” that may have directly led to the death of an innocent American citizen and, now, a revelation that accused Charleston, S.C., shooter Dylann Roof was able to purchase a gun that he otherwise should not have been able to buy because there was a “lapse” in the FBI background check system.  All of these are examples that reflect a flat-out case of gross mismanagement of government under President Obama.

I think Obama believes that governance is about theatrics, symbolism and gestures — not about executive management. Every administration and the government as a whole eventually reflects many of the characteristics of the incumbent president. People take their lead from the person at the top and a work culture emerges. Suffice it to say, I don’t think there will be any business schools named for Obama.

Anyway, as I’ve said before, in this administration, too many people who work for Obama are all about having their position, not doing the work required of that position. They relish holding their office without assuming the responsibility of management. Or they don’t really understand what management means. But why would they? The president himself never managed anything and so there’s no particular reason he should have a good eye for or any relevant experience in picking or guiding effective managers.

What does the management failure of the Obama presidency say about what we should look for in our next president? Well, a proven manager would be an excellent place to start. In 2008 and again in 2012, voters took a chance with Barack Obama, and we ended up with wall-to-wall incompetence.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading....

Wal-Mart sued for denying health insurance to gay worker's wife

A Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) employee sued the retailer on Tuesday, saying its prior policy of denying health insurance to the spouses of gay employees violated gender discrimination laws.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, seeks nationwide class-action status.

Wal-Mart, the largest private U.S. employer, began offering health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses last year, after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to married gay couples. Even after that change, the lawsuit says, Wal-Mart workers still live with the uncertainty of losing spousal coverage.

"Benefits provided by Wal-Mart as a matter of grace ... are not secure and could potentially be withdrawn just when large health care costs are incurred," the lawsuit says.

Jackie Cote, who has worked at Walmart stores in Maine and Massachusetts since 1999, said in the lawsuit that her wife, Diana Smithson, developed cancer in 2012 and the denial of insurance led to more than $150,000 in medical debt.

Cote and Smithson were married in Massachusetts in 2004, days after a court ruling made the state the first to allow gay nuptials.

Smithson worked for Wal-Mart until 2008, when she left to care for Cote's elderly mother, according to the lawsuit. The company then repeatedly denied requests by Cote to add her wife to her insurance policy. Smithson is now in hospice care, Cote said.

Last year, Cote filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a prerequisite to filing an employment discrimination lawsuit. The commission said in January that Wal-Mart violated gender discrimination laws by denying benefits to Smithson.

The commission in recent years has pioneered the argument that employment discrimination against gay people is a form of gender discrimination, since it would not happen if an employee were of the opposite sex, but it has not been vetted by courts.

Via: Reuters

Continue Reading....

Last trace of Boston snow pile finally melts away

These photos, taken Feb. 18, left, and July 13, show the melting of a pile of snow in Boston. Mayor Martin Walsh announced Tuesday that the pile has officially dwindled to nothing. (Jim Walker/Conventures, Inc. via AP)

A filthy pile of snow in Boston's Seaport District, a lingering reminder of the city's record-breaking winter, is no more.

Mayor Martin Walsh said Tuesday that the tower of the white stuff had finally melted to nothing from an initial height of 75 feet.

Boston set a new snowfall record this past winter, with 60.8 inches recorded over a 30-day stretch. That narrowly bested the notorious winter of 1978, which saw 58.8 inches of snow fall over a similar time period. In total, the city received more than 110 inches of snow.

The pile was constructed by workers who removed the snow from Boston's streets and brought to so-called "snow farms", where it was stacked up and left to melt. But in this case, there was so much snow to melt that it took longer than anyone had anticipated.

Winter passed into an unseasonably warm spring, with some days reaching the high-80s, but the snow pile held on. Making matters worse, the pile was also laden with more than 80 tons of garbage, transforming it into a repulsive trash heap as the snow melted. Officials say two snowstorms struck after residents put their trash out, and it got swept up by plows.

In a sign of the times, Mayor Walsh turned the agonizing wait for the final melt into a social media contest, inviting users to guess the exact date that the snow would be gone for good. The mayor is scheduled to congratulate the challenge winners Wednesday morning at Boston's City Hall.

With summer in full swing and temperatures flirting with the 90s, the epic winter has seemed like a distant bad dream to many Bostonians. Others had speculated — and not happily — that the messy mound might last until Labor Day.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

10th Circuit to Little Sisters of the Poor: Comply with contraception mandate

Guess which ObamaCare case will be headed to the Supreme Court next? At least, that’s the option open for the Little Sisters of the Poor and their defense team at The Becket Fund for the restoration of a temporary injunction against compliance with the HHS mandate. The 10th Circuit handed the nuns a defeat this morning, vacating the earlier temporary injunction ordered by a lower court:

Moments ago, in a departure from the U.S. Supreme Court’s protection of the Little Sisters of the Poorlast year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the Little Sisters must comply with the government’s HHS mandate. This mandate forces religious ministries to violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties …

The Tenth Circuit heard oral argument in this case December of last year, when for the first time since the case began, Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, Mother Provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor, delivered a public statement on the case (see statement here). 

Today the Tenth Circuit ruled that government can force the Little Sisters to either violate their faith or pay massive IRS penalties. The court held that participating in the government’s contraception delivery scheme is “as easy as obtaining a parade permit, filing a simple tax for, or registering to vote” and that although the Sisters sincerely believe that participating in the scheme “make[s] them complicit in the overall delivery scheme,” the court “ultimately rejects the merits of this claim,” because the court believes the scheme relieves [the Little Sisters] from complicity.”

The Little Sisters and their attorneys are closely reviewing the court’s decision and will decide soon whether they must seek relief from the Supreme Court.

“We will keep on fighting for the Little Sisters, even if that means having to go all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Daniel Blomberg, Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The Court’s order similarly harms Christian Brothers Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, the Catholic ministries through which the Little Sisters obtain their health coverage.

This means that the Little Sisters of the Poor will be forced to comply with the mandate or face ruinous penalties, even while appealing their denial of religious exemption by HHS. The idea that Catholic nuns are somehow required to provide contraception through their insurer to their employees — who had to know that Catholic nuns would be the last group one would ask for contraception — demonstrates just how ridiculous this mandate is.

The decision, which is very lengthy, was unanimous on the issues for the LSP nuns. The sole dissent in part addresses the way this decision broadly addresses the impact on self-insuring non-profits:

Today the Court holds, among other things, that the ACA contraceptive Mandate’s accommodation scheme does not substantially burden religious non-profits that object to facilitating contraceptive or abortifacient coverage because opting out does not cause, authorize, or otherwise facilitate such coverage.1 The Court’s opinion provides perhaps the most thorough explanation of the accommodation scheme’s nuanced mechanics that I have yet read. And for argument’s sake, I follow its holding as to the insured plaintiffs’ and Little Sisters plaintiffs’ RFRA claims.2 But I cannot join the Court’s holding as to the other self-insured plaintiffs’ RFRA claims, as that holding contradicts the Court’s own reasoning and thorough explanation of the accommodation scheme.

In reality, the accommodation scheme forces the self-insured plaintiffs to perform an act that causes their beneficiaries to receive religiously objected-to coverage. The fines the government uses to compel this act thus impose a substantial burden on the selfinsured plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Moreover, less restrictive means exist to achieve the government’s contraceptive coverage goals here. I must therefore dissent in part.

The difference demonstrates a well-known weakness in the LSP case, which is how their insurance was structured. The LSP organization has less direct control over its insurance thanks to its use of a kind of co-op, and that was apparently enough for the 10th Circuit to rule that compliance with the HHS accommodation does not actually facilitate the use of contraceptives. Politically, this case is embarrassing for the Obama administration, but HHS has a somewhat stronger case here than with other religious organizations.

The Becket Fund had success in getting the Supreme Court to order a temporary injunction for LSP under the previous accommodation. It appears that they’ll have to try that path again to keep the nuns on the job providing hospice care as part of their exercise of religious liberty.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading....

Obamacare’s Enrollment Increase: Mainly Due to Medicaid Expansion

Abstract

Health insurance enrollment data show that the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage increased by a bit less than 2.5 million in the first half of 2014. While enrollment in individual market coverage grew by almost 6.3 million, 61 percent of that gain was offset by a reduction of nearly 3.8 million individuals with employer-sponsored coverage. During the same period, Medicaid enrollment increased by almost 6.1 million—principally as a result of Obamacare expanding eligibility to able-bodied, working-age adults. Consequently, 71 percent of the combined increase in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014 was attributable to 25 states and the District of Columbia adopting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

W‌ith enrollment data now available for the second quarter ‌of 2014, it is possible to construct a complete picture of the changes in health insurance coverage that occurred during the initial implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as Obamacare. The data show that in the first half of 2014, private health insurance enrollment increased by a net of 2,465,586 individuals. That net figure reflects the fact that 61 percent of the gain in individual coverage was offset by a drop in employer group coverage. During the same period, Medicaid enrollment grew by 6,072,651 individuals. Thus, while a total of 8.5 million individuals gained coverage, 71 percent of that net coverage gain was attributable to the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults.

 

Changes in Private Coverage Enrollment

Health insurers file quarterly reports with state regulators, and data from those reports for the second quarter of 2014 are now available.[1] The three relevant market subsets for this analysis are (1) the individual market, (2) the fully insured employer-group market, and the (3) self-insured employer-group market.[2] Table 1 shows the changes in private health insurance enrollment during the first and second quarters of 2014, along with the net changes for the combined six-month period.

Obamacare’s initial open enrollment period began on October 1, 2013, and officially ended on March 31, 2014—though in a number of states it was extended into April to give those who had experienced problems enrolling additional time to complete the process. Because enrollment was for the 2014 plan year, the coverage for those who enrolled during the fourth quarter of 2013 took effect in the new year; thus, those individuals are included in the data for the first quarter (Q1) of 2014. The data for Q2 2014 captures enrollments that occurred during the last two months of the open enrollment period, or which were otherwise delayed due to the numerous problems experienced by the exchanges, and so did not take effect until after the end of the first quarter.

The data show that enrollment in individual market coverage increased by over 2.7 million individuals in Q1 2014 and by a further 3.5 million individuals in Q2. Thus, for the first half of 2014, enrollment in individual market coverage grew by almost 6.3 million individuals.

The second-biggest coverage change that occurred during the first half of 2014 was the decline in the number of individuals with coverage through fully insured employer group plans. Enrollment in such plans dropped by 3.8 million individuals in Q1 2014, and by nearly a million more individuals in Q2 2014. Thus, for the first half of 2014, the number of individuals with coverage through a fully insured employer group plan decreased by nearly 4.8 million.

Enrollment in self-insured employer plans modestly increased in both quarters—by 347,000 in Q1 2014, and by about 652,000 in Q2—for a net enrollment gain of a little less than one million during the first half of 2014. Consequently, the combined enrollment changes in the two segments of the employer group market during the first half of 2014 produced a net decrease of almost 3.8 million in the number of Americans covered by employer-sponsored plans.

That net reduction in employer-sponsored group coverage is explained by employers discontinuing coverage for some or all of their workers or, in some cases, individuals losing access to such coverage due to employment changes. While it is not possible to determine from the data the subsequent coverage status of individuals who lost group coverage, there are only four possibilities: (1) some obtained replacement individual-market coverage (either on or off the exchanges); (2) some enrolled in Medicaid; (3) some enrolled in other coverage for which they are eligible (such as a plan offered by their new employer, a spouse’s plan, a parent’s policy, or Medicare); and (4) some became uninsured.

 

If individuals lost group coverage, but obtained new coverage under either another employer group plan or one in the individual market, they would then be counted in the enrollment figures for those submarkets. Similarly, if individuals transitioned to Medicaid, they would be counted in the Medicaid enrollment figures reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Via: Heritage

Continue Reading....