KANSAS; MAYOR BRAGS: OUR WHITE POPULATION PLUMMETS

The mayor of Kansas City, Kansas, in an address to the radical socialist organization National Council of La Raza, bragged that his city is no longer majority white and the city’s schools now have students who speak 62 different languages.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Kansas City, Kansas, was 52 percent white.

But in a speech before the La Raza National Affiliates Luncheon earlier this week in Kansas City, Mayor Mark Holland boasted that only five years later his city’s white population has been reduced to 40 percent.

He seemed to suggest that La Raza was at least partly responsible for the progress. But he also cited the refugee resettlement work of the United Nations and U.S. State Department for the city’s transformation into a gleaming example of multicultural diversity.

Kansas City, he said, “is very proud of the work of National Council of La Raza.”

“Kansas City, Kansas, is a city with no ethnic majority. Kansas City, Kansas, is 40 percent white, 28 percent Latino, and 26 percent African-American,” Holland said. “Our school district speaks 62 different languages by the children every single day. And Kansas City, Kansas, has a proud heritage of welcoming all people into the community, people who are not welcome in other places.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Latinos started coming with the Santa Fe railroad more than 100 years ago, to build the railroad, he said. Another railroad, the Underground Railroad, brought African-Americans to Kansas. “If they could get across the river they were free and settled in a township of Quindero.”

“We continue to have a number of groups of refugees from around the world,” he added, mentioning the large Hmong community that came in the 1970s and 80s following the Vietnam War.

In recent years, the city has welcomed more refugees from other parts of the world, including Muslim Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, Hindus from Bhutan and Buddhists and Muslims from Burma.

Via: WWD

Continue Reading....

[EDITORIAL] Editorial: A promising BP settlement

Getty Images

Nearly eight months after the April 2010 BP oil spill, workers in Waveland, Miss., remove tar balls from along the Gulf Coast. Under a settlement Thursday, BP will pay $18.7 billion to resolve nearly all outstanding claims.

The settlement announced Thursday in the 2010 BP oil spill marks a major turning point for the federal-state effort to repair the Gulf of Mexico after the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. The $18.7 billion that BP has agreed to pay is substantial enough to help the gulf, punitive enough to send a message to the industry and affordable enough to keep a major player active in the vital energy sector. Florida fares well at first glance, but it will be up to regulators and the courts to ensure that this framework agreement actually fulfills its promise.

The settlement would resolve nearly all outstanding claims resulting from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which sank off the coast of Louisiana on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers and causing millions of barrels of oil to spew into the Gulf of Mexico. BP would pay $18.7 billion in damages and fines, including $7.1 billion for environmental restoration, $5.9 billion for economic claims from the five gulf states and a record $5.5 billion in penalties under the Clean Water Act (80 percent of which will be directed to gulf restoration projects), plus other costs.

State and federal officials could have held out for more, and U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said he would have liked to have seen larger damages. The federal court in New Orleans overseeing the case was expected to rule on damages any day, and BP lost its bid this week to have the U.S. Supreme Court consider its appeal on damages. But this deal is a reasonable effort to end years of litigation, provide certainty for all sides and bring serious money to the table for economic losses and restoration. And it's on top of $1 billion the company fronted early on for restoration projects (several of which are under way in Florida). BP also committed another $1 billion to resolve local government claims; Tampa announced Thursday it would receive $27 million. And BP will set aside an additional $600 million to cover any future environmental damage and any outstanding response costs.

Via: Tampa Bay Times

Continue Reading....

Top 10 Broken Obamacare Promises

Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, many of the President’s famous promises have been routinely broken. As he so ironically threatened in 2009, “If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out.” To that end, here are 10 promises of Obamacare that have already been broken.

1. “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Reality:

• Millions of Americans have lost and will lose their current coverage due to Obamacare.
• 4.7 million reported health insurance cancellations or changes of existing policies in 32 states.

2. “[T]hat means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”

Reality:

• Many Americans might not be able to keep their current doctor without paying extra.
• Many plans offered on Obamacare’s exchanges have very limited provider networks.

3. “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

Reality:

• Premiums for people purchasing coverage in the individual market have significantly increased in a majority of states.
• Family premiums for those with employer-based coverage have increased by an average of $2,976 from 2009 to 2013.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading....

Time's Mark Halperin Lamented Press Failure to Scrutinize Obamacare....But In 2010, Boasted About It

 Last Thursday, Time's Mark Halperin told guest host Laura Ingraham on "The O'Reilly Factor" that "There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program at the time of passage and during the context of the president's re-election. Any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand." Romney's vulnerability on Romneycare meant it wasn't much of an issue.

"It's part of the flaws of the way the media works," Halperin added. "If the candidates aren't talking about it, it gets less coverage. But there's no doubt a disservice was done to the country and even to liberals who want this program to succeed, because it didn't get scrutiny on passage, and then again when the President was running for re-election." But James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal did the mean thing to Halperin. Oh, look, here's one Mark Halperin on March 22, 2010, boasting about the forthcoming press failure on Obamacare, right after it passed:

 In the 7½ months between now and November's midterm elections, millions of Americans will be whipped into a frenzy over the purported evils in the Democrats' health care bill, egged on by Fox News chatter, Rush Limbaugh's daily sermons, threats of state legislative and judicial action and the solemn pledge of Republicans in Washington to make the fall election a referendum on Obamacare. But in doing so, they may be playing right into the Democrats' hands. . . .

 Democrats will be joined in the fray by much of the press. For Republicans, this will seem like familiar ground, since generations of conservatives have complained that the so-called mainstream media have been biased against them. Well, get ready, Republicans, for déjà vu all over again. The coverage through November likely will highlight the most extreme attacks on the President and his law and spotlight stories of real Americans whose lives have been improved by access to health care (pushed, no doubt, by Democrats from every competitive congressional district and state).

 The louder Republicans yell, the more they will be characterized and caricatured as sore losers infuriated by the first major delivery of candidate Obama's promise of "change." The focus on the weekend's alleged racial and gay-bashing verbal attacks by opponents of the Democrats' plan should be a caution to Republican strategists trying to figure out how to manage the media this year.

Taranto added: "His indictment should have been framed as a confession."

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

False job numbers: Did the White House know?

That like asking is snow white!!!!

Let me be the first to ask: Did the White House know that employment reports were being falsified?

Last week I reported exclusively that someone at the Census Bureau’s Philadelphia region had been screwing around with employment data. And that person, after he was caught in 2010, claimed he was told to do so by a supervisor two levels up the chain of command.

On top of that, a reliable source whom I haven’t identified said the falsification of employment data by Census was widespread and ongoing, especially around the time of the 2012 election.

There’s now a congressional investigation of how Census handles employment data. And we can hope that we’ll find out this was just an isolated incident.

But let me tell you why it might not be.

Back in 2009 — right before the 2010 census of the nation was taken — there was an announcement that the Obama administration had decided that the Census Bureau would report to senior White House aides.

The rumor was that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was in charge of the nationwide head count.

The chief of the Commerce Department usually oversees the Census, which determines how many congressional representatives and how much money each state gets for the next decade. But the Obama administration had decided — the story went — that Emanuel was a better guy for the job.

Via: NY Post

Continue Reading.....

AER Study: Dodd-Frank Regulations Will Harm Consumer & Business Protections Against Energy Price Volatility

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- With the 2010 passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress set a course to damage one of the key tools used by energy suppliers and users to tamp down energy price volatility, according to a new study released today by the Abraham Energy Report. 

The study urges Congress to consider entirely exempting physical commodity businesses from financial regulation that was meant to address the players that caused the global financial crisis.  The study finds that unless Congress takes remedial action, the effects of energy price volatility will be felt throughout the entire economy.

The study, entitled "Dodd-Frank and Energy Price Stability: Time to Rein In Unintended Consequences," was written by Spencer Abraham and Mark P. Mills.  Abraham, former U.S. Secretary of Energy, is the Chairman & CEO of The Abraham Group, an energy consulting firm.  Mills is CEO of Digital Power Capital and a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

"Congress has unintentionally set a course to damage one of the core tools used by energy suppliers and users to tamp down energy price volatility," the authors explained.  "When energy price volatility rears up again - as it inevitably will since no one has yet found a way to eliminate volatility - the effects this time will be more widely felt in the economy because energy companies will have been driven out of their traditional role as providers of risk management products to their energy-using customers."

Congressional passage of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was intended to address the root causes of the 2008 financial collapse.  Swept into Dodd-Frank are the financial tools used by major energy producers and consumers to reduce business and consumer risks from the inherent volatility in the prices of primary energy commodities. The study notes that less than 0.3% of the total swaps market involves energy transactions.

Via: Digital Journal

Continue Reading......

Report: Feds spent $4.4 BILLION on state Obamacare exchanges

Data compiled and released Friday by the conservative organization Americans for Tax Reform reveals the amount of federal tax dollars funneled to states to implement Obamacare exchanges at $4.4 billion.

According to ATR, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services distributed the funds to states for a variety of “vague” purposes.

ATR pulled out grant purposes such as:

• “[P]reparations to demonstrate operational readiness”
• “Provide assistance to hire staff and consultants”
• “Continue and complete current planning and implementation efforts”
• “Secure staff consultants and expert resources and actively engage stakeholders”
• “Marketplace IT system design and development costs including IT consultants and privacy and security consultants”

States that did not end up setting up there own Obamacare exchanges also received money, according to ATR’s research.

Alabama for example, received $9,772,451 in two grants in 2010 and 2011 one for planning the exchange and the other to “support core staff, contracts, and activities around early implementation of the Alabama Health Insurance Exchange.”

Many of the states that did end up creating their own exchanges received more money than those that did not.

ATR’s tax policy director Ryan Ellis told The Daily Caller that it was not clear from CMS’ records what ended up happening to the money provided to states to set up exchanges that in the end decided not establish their own exchange.

“Presumably, [the funding] was to try to get those states to change their mind at an earlier stage of development,” Ellis wrote in an email.

Via Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Yahoo Finance Writer Needles Boehner, Ryan: ‘Obamacare Still Isn’t Killing Jobs’

Yahoo Finance columnist Rick Newman wrote a column arguing “Obamacare Still Isn’t Killing Jobs,” playing off the Friday employment numbers and picking on Speaker John Boehner and Paul Ryan.

“Since the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, Republicans have claimed repeatedly that it would be a job-killing monstrosity, with ample evidence of its withering effect on the economy by now. “The health-care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy,” a 2011 report sponsored by House Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Paul Ryan and other Republicans declared. Well maybe, someday, but in the law’s first month of existence it appeared to have no impact whatsoever on jobs.” Newman even argued Obamacare could create jobs by spurring people to quit jobs they were only keeping for the health benefits:

Obamacare could help create jobs, too, and not just for customer-service representatives taking calls from frustrated health-care shoppers unable to navigate the bug-filled Obamacare website. One benefit of the law is it will free some people from sticking with jobs they don’t like simply to get health-care benefits, since they’ll now be able to buy policies priced at a group rate — similar to the rates big companies pay — on one of the public exchanges. That could persuade some people to ditch jobs they’re poorly suited for so they can do more-productive work someplace else, or even start their own business.

Newman’s Twitter bio includes the word (and punctuation)  “Centrist!” You could have fooled people with this column. You’d be looking for the Obama logo.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

The Outrage Arrives

You can't keep your insurance because Democrats don't want you to control your own health-care spending.

The White House has issued a clarification. When the president said if you like your insurance plan you can keep it, what he meant was you can keep it if he likes it.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans who are getting policy cancellation notices this month can't be as surprised as they pretend to be. President Obama made it clear at his 2010 health care summit what he thought of their taste in insurance.

"It's the equivalent of Acme Insurance that I had for my car. . . . It's basically not health insurance," he explained. "It's house insurance. . . .

"I'm buying that to protect me from some catastrophic situation; otherwise, I'm just paying out of pocket. I don't go to the doctor. I don't get preventive care. There are a whole bunch of things I just do without. But if I get hit by a truck, maybe I don't go bankrupt."

Notice his disdain for those who buy high-deductible policies to protect themselves only from unexpected and unmanageable health-care costs. They are too cheap or too dumb to reach into their own pockets for necessary care that isn't covered by their policy or triggers the deductible.

These customers might like their plan. Their plan might even be the best cure, as many experts believe, for what ails our health-care system, namely too much incentive for Americans to over consume health care. But Mr. Obama doesn't like their plans so they can't keep them.

Democrats at least are consistent. Back in 1993, during the fight over HillaryCare, Mrs. Clinton explained Democratic reasoning to then-House GOP Leader Denny Hastert. If Americans are allowed too much discretion over how they spend their health-care dollars, Mrs. Clinton said, "We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won't get the care for their children and themselves that they need . . .

"The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better."

Via: WSJ

Continue