Not 'believe', know. It's right there in black and white for all to read and understand. Except you, you don'r get to see it.

In any case, I don't recall expressing a preference, or even mentioning the name 'Mueller'; and even if I did have a preference, I'm hardly in a position to act on it, being the Non-President. Why are you asking me these nonsensical questions? And why are you attempting to attribute words and actions to me that are not mine?

Did we have our Wheaties this morning?

--6IH.,B13.14
NRCC says Obamacare cuts money from Medicare and seniors.
Since the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans and their allies have claimed the Affordable Care Act slashes funding for Medicare, the federal healthcare program for seniors. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made almost identical claims in the 2012 presidential election as well.
It appears the GOP playbook for the 2014 midterms will be similar.
An early indication is in Florida’s special election to replace the late U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., where the National Republican Congressional Committee is airing an ad hammering Democrat Alex Sink’s support of Obamacare.
The ad says the law includes a "$700 billion cut from Medicare for seniors."
We’ve tackled this claim repeatedly throughout the years. There’s some truth to it, but quite a bit of context is missing.
Obamacare does not literally cut funding from the Medicare budget, but tries to bring down future health care costs in the program. Much of this is accomplished by reducing Medicare Advantage, a small subset of Medicare plans that are run by private insurers.
President George W. Bush started Medicare Advantage in hopes the increased competition would reduce costs. But those plans are actually costlier than traditional Medicare. So the health care law reduces payments to private insurers.
Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.
The goal is get health care providers to increase their efficiency and quality of care instead of cutting benefits for seniors.
The overall trend in Medicare spending is still expected to increase, even after the adjustments in the Affordable Care Act.
How much are the spending reductions? That has changed throughout the years as estimates get updated.
In 2011, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper of fiscal legislation, estimated that the reductions in Medicare spending in the Affordable Care Act were about $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. A more recent estimate from 2013 anticipated about $716 billion in Medicare savings from 2013-2022.
It’s also worth noting that the preferred plan of Republicans in 2012, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, assumed the same cuts to Medicare.
When asked to back up their claim, the NRCC pointed us to our own story from Nov. 2, 2012, about Young’s last Congressional race. In it, we fact-checked an ad in which Young claimed he "opposed $716 billion cut to Medicare."
THE DAILY SIGNAL---Obamacare Robs Medicare of $716 Billion to Fund Itself:
According to the CBO, the payment cuts in Medicare include:
• A $260 billion payment cut for hospital services.
• A $39 billion payment cut for skilled nursing services.
• A $17 billion payment cut for hospice services.
• A $66 billion payment cut for home health services.
• A $33 billion payment cut for all other services.
• A $156 billion cut in payment rates in Medicare Advantage (MA); $156 billion is before considering interactions with other provisions. The House Ways and Means Committee was able to include interactions with other provisions, estimating the cuts to MA to be even higher, coming in at $308 billion.
• $56 billion in cuts for disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments.* DSH payments go to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients.
• $114 billion in other provisions pertaining to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP* (does not include coverage-related provisions).
In total, Obamacare raids Medicare by $716 billion from 2013 to 2022. Despite Medicare facing a 75-year unfunded obligation of $37 trillion, Obamacare uses the savings from the cuts to pay for other provisions in Obamacare, not to help shore up Medicare’s finances.
• The impact of these cuts will be detrimental to seniors’ access to care. The Medicare trustees 2012 report concludes that these lower Medicare payment rates will cause an estimated 15 percent of hospitals,
• skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies to operate at a loss by 2019,
• 25 percent to operate at a loss in 2030, and 40 percent by 2050. Operating at a loss means these facilities are likely to cut back their services to Medicare patients or close their doors, making it more difficult for seniors to access these services.
• In addition, as MA deteriorates under Obamacare’s cuts, many of those who are enrolled in MA (27 percent of total Medicare beneficiaries) will lose their current health coverage and be forced back into traditional Medicare, where Medicare providers will be subject to further cuts. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services chief actuary predicted in 2010 that enrollment in MA would decrease 50 percent
• by 2017, when Obamacare’s cuts were estimated at only $145 billion.
• Now that the cuts have been increased to $156 billion (or possibly $308 billion,
• as the Ways and Means Committee estimates), MA enrollment will surely decrease even further.
• But Obamacare’s raid of Medicare doesn’t stop with cuts; it includes a redirection of tax revenue from the Medicare payroll tax hike in Obamacare. The payroll tax funds Medicare Part A, the trust fund that is projected to become insolvent as soon as 2024.
• Obamacare increases the tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, which is projected to cost taxpayers $318 billion from 2013 to 2022.
• However, for the very first time, Obamacare does not use the tax revenue from the increased Medicare payroll tax to pay for Medicare;
• the money is used to fund other parts of Obamacare, much like the $716 billion in cuts are.
• With a raid on Medicare of this magnitude, President Obama’s assertion that his new law is protecting seniors and Medicare is astonishing.
• The truth is that Obamacare does the opposite.

SOURCE-NRCC, CONTORNO, STEVE-MOORHEAD, MOLLY-THE DAILY SIGNAL-SENGER, ALYENE-

DOJ slams Obama administration for sexual harassment and disturbing scandals
December 28, 2017

DOJ slams Obama administration for sexual harassment and disturbing scandals Marc Nozell / CCL

As more information regarding the apathy and incompetence of the Barack Obama administration continues to emerge, his legacy is being chipped away piece by piece. As with most liberals, former-President Barack Obama consistently spoke about protecting women in the workplace, while purposefully ignoring the plight of those under his command.

On Tuesday, a report released by a government watchdog group found a “systemic” issue in how the Obama Justice Department handled sexual harassment complaints: employees that behaved inappropriately did not receive a proper reprimand and, in some cases, were reportedly promoted instead of punished.

The lack of action taken by the Obama administration is in direct contrast to its rhetoric and supposed advocacy for women.
Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Obama’s record was already under fire after it was revealed that his administration allowed the Islamic militant group Hezbollah to smuggle drugs into the United States and destroyed ten years of undercover work to appease the Iranians so they would sign the Iran nuclear deal. Now another scandal has threatened to upend Obama’s legacy as a protector of women and women’s “rights.”

According to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, the level of sexual harassment in the Department of Justice (DOJ) has drastically risen in the last five years and requires “high-level action.” Justice Department Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz elaborated on the extent of the problem in Washington, which has become endemic:

We’re talking about presidential appointees, political appointees, FBI special agents in charge, U.S. attorneys, wardens, a chief deputy U.S. marshal, a U.S. marshal assistant director, a deputy assistant attorney general.

Apparently, the most troubling cases occurred in the Justice Department’s Civil Division. The Hill reported:

In one instance, a top lawyer in the division reportedly groped the breasts and buttocks of two female trial attorneys and also made sexual comments to them at an office. He had previously been disciplined and demoted for sending sexually oriented emails to colleagues.

The “top lawyer,” Victor Lawrence, receive no punishment or reprimand for his reprehensible actions. In fact, his conduct was so egregious that the IG’s report stated that the situation “presented potential criminal assault violations, yet we found no evidence in the case file that a referral was made to the [Inspector General] or any other law enforcement entity.”

There have been 17 more sexual harassment claims from DOJ employees that have surfaced since this summer, though it is unclear when those incidents occurred.
Them, Not Us

Some of the accused under the Obama administration went on to receive commendations and performance awards, while their victims were left baffled and ashamed. One woman who was sexually harassed stated she was “terrified” to get in an elevator for fear that her harasser would be there.

This was apparently a systemic problem in the DOJ, but President Donald Trump, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, seem to be taking aggressive measures to clean house to ensure these problems get resolved quickly and fairly.

The Trump Justice Department has declined to comment on the details of any of the allegations but described the problems under the previous administration. Ian Prior, a spokesman for the Trump administration, stated:

The Department does not discuss specific employee disciplinary actions or comment on personnel actions or matters that may impact personal privacy. That said, the Department was very disappointed with the issues that occurred in the Obama administration and strives for a workplace free of harassment and other misconduct for all of our 115,000 employees. That is why the Civil Division has implemented additional safeguards and systems to ensure that all misconduct allegations are handled appropriately going forward.

The veneer on President Obama’s record on human rights, foreign policy, and protecting women seems to be crumbling. He should have spent more time putting his rhetoric into action instead of lecturing the country about its perceived shortcomings.

-3kh.,b49
questions as you read this---Soros is the guy hired to put on paid violent protest and these millions wouldn't they sere a better purpose like for jibs?
• Plagued by sagging ratings, player protests and fan outrage, the NFL has thrown a political Hail Mary by reportedly agreeing to dole out millions of dollars to two social justice groups connected to Democratic billionaire George Soros.
• Under an agreement with the Players Coalition, NFL owners plan to funnel tens of millions of dollars to the Dream Corps, a leftist advocacy group led by former Obama adviser Van Jones and linked to Mr. Soros, which has called for saving the Clean Power Plan, cutting the prison population by half and providing “sanctuary for all.”
• The $89 million, seven-year deal also carves out millions of dollars for the Players Coalition, according to ESPN, which has been advised by Soros-funded groups such as the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth and the Center for American Progress, a leader of the anti-Trump “resistance.”
• Still, there is no guarantee that the hefty payout will solve the league’s public relations woes.
• The bargain is aimed at addressing the social justice concerns that have led players to sit or kneel during the national anthem, but nothing in the deal requires players to stand.
• In fact, two of the most dedicated protesters — Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers and Michael Thomas of the Miami Dolphins — have vowed to keep kneeling and described the deal as inadequate.
• Meanwhile, details of the bargain emerging in the past few days have stunned conservatives.
• “If this is how the NFL plans to bring back the millions of Americans who are fed up with the players’ antics and anthem protests, then the league just fumbled the ball,” said Robert Kuykendall, a spokesman for 2ndVote, a conservative corporate watchdog group.
• “Why would any conservative spend another dollar supporting the NFL if that dollar will be directly funneled to left-wing activists like Van Jones?” he asked.
• The agreement distributes funding for both local and national efforts. On the national side, the owners agree to pay $73 million over seven years, with 25 percent earmarked for the United Negro College Fund and 25 percent to the Dream Corps.
• The remaining 50 percent would be controlled by the Players Coalition, which has filed for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, as a fiscally sponsored project of the Hopewell Fund, which is managed by Arabella Advisors, a major player in the environmental movement.
• Any agreement would need to be approved by the owners at the annual league meeting in March, according to ESPN.
• Players Coalition leader Malcolm Jenkins, a Philadelphia Eagles safety, celebrated the deal in an open letter Sunday, praising the NFL for “making a major commitment, more than they have done for any other charitable initiative.”
• “What the NFL has done is a good first step — it’s not going to solve the massive problems we have in our cities and states across this country, but it’s a start,” Mr. Jenkins said. “And, more importantly, I’m glad we were able to get them to acknowledge their responsibility and role in trying to help solve these problems and injustices.”
• He thanked “the organizations who have helped the Players Coalition to date — the Fair Punishment Project, the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Community Legal Services, the Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth,” as well as city police departments, grass-roots groups and public defenders.
• At least three of those — the ACLU, Campaign for Fair Sentencing of Youth and the Center for American Progress — have received funding from Mr. Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
• Mr. Soros’ fingerprints can also be found on the Dream Corps, which merged in 2014 with Green for All, an environmental group founded by Mr. Jones in 2007 whose funders included Open Society as well as former Vice President Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, according to Discover the Networks.
• Mr. Jones resigned as President Obama’s “green jobs czar” in 2009 amid reports of his earlier Marxist activism, including his oft-quoted declaration that he became a communist after the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers who beat up Rodney King.
• Since then, Mr. Jones has championed the green energy industry and raised his profile as a CNN political analyst.
• The Dream Corps has four primary projects: YesWeCode, which trains disadvantaged young people as computer programmers; Cut50, which calls for reducing the U.S. prison population by 50 percent; Green for All, which advocates for an “inclusive green economy”; and the LoveArmy.
• The LoveArmy casts itself as a more hopeful and less-negative resistance group whose stances include support for net neutrality and opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline and the Clean Power Plan.
• Mr. Jones wore a #LoveArmy sticker when he spoke Jan. 21 at the Women’s March, a major anti-Trump resistance event whose partners included the Dream Corps, which describes itself as a “social justice accelerator.”
• “This movement is not going to let you mess with the Muslims,” Mr. Jones said at the march. “This movement is not going to let you mess with the Dreamers, President Trump. We’re not going to let you mess with the women. We’re not going to let you mess with the Earth. We’re not going to let you mess with Black Lives Matter. This movement is based on that kind of love.”
• The LoveArmy, whose posters include messages such as “Ban Wall/Sanctuary for All,” also supported the Climate March and Day Without a Woman events.
• About 40 players were involved in the Players Coalition, and others have criticized the agreement, accusing the NFL of financing the deal by diverting funding from its other major charitable initiatives, Salute to Service and Breast Cancer Awareness.
• The NFL and the Players Coalition did not return immediately a request for comment Monday. The NFL Players Association, which is the players’ union, has said it was not involved in the talks.
• In his open letter, Mr. Jenkins said he helped form the Players Coalition in 2016 in reaction to the deaths of black men at the hands of police. He said the priorities include tackling the juvenile justice system, the “unjust bail policies,” the “mass incarceration of young black men” and lack of jobs in low-income neighborhoods.
• “What we’ve learned is that this is not a Democrat or a Republican issue,” said Mr. Jenkins. “It’s an American issue — and an American problem. That is why we are moving forward with our efforts in the Coalition, to drive forward initiatives, campaigns and advocacy efforts to force legislators to make this a priority.”
• Sixteen players sat or took a knee before the Week 13 games, while Mr. Jenkins stopped his practice of raising a fist during the national anthem.
source--gop usa-wash times-hopewell fund-arabella advisors-

Who 'owns' you?

"Self-ownership means your body is your property. You can do whatever you want with it until your actions affect other individuals without their consent".

Sounds reasonable, right? 'You may not harm me'. 'You may not force me to act'. These are known as 'natural' or 'negative' rights. But what about 'positive' rights, such as education (FDR) and healthcare (BHO)?

"Forcing people to work against their will is called slavery. That is clearly a violation of self-ownership. That is the concept of positive rights. It requires an individual to act. Self-ownership means you have the right to not be forced to act against your will. These concepts of rights are contradictory. Both cannot exist". An irreconcilable contradiction that cannot be sustained. We either have 'negative' rights or 'positive' rights, but not both. How to decide?

"Therefore a right cannot be something that must be provided. It is the absence of aggression, not the presence of a good or service. You may not kill me, because I have the right to life. That concept stops aggressive action. You must give me food, because I have the right to eat. That concept allows aggressive action". Aggressive action, as a violation of 'negative rights', is wrong, but aggressive action is also a byproduct of 'positive rights', inferring that something is inherently wrong with the concept of 'positive rights'.

Do two 'wrongs' make a 'right'? You decide.

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/what-are-rights-do-rights-even-exist/