Total spending for game day forecast at over $14 billion

Americans eat 1.25 billion chicken wings on Super Bowl Sunday

By Charles Passy

Published: Jan 30, 2015 9:33 a.m. ET

                                      

Forget deflategate. Or that controversial GoDaddy ad.
The real story of this year’s Super Bowl may be what Americans are expected to spend in celebration of the big day — a record $14.31 billion, according to the National Retail Federation.
Even more remarkable: The tab for the party has increased by nearly 65% over the last eight years — in 2007, it was $8.71 billion — despite the fact that TV viewership for the event has grown at a significantly lesser pace since 2007, up 19% from 93 to 111 million.
The Super Bowl tab covers everything from chicken wings (we’ll devour 1.25 billion of them during the big day, according to the National Chicken Council) to shiny new TVs (we’ll purchase 9.5 million of them in the weeks leading up to the game, according to the National Retail Federation). In all, the retail federation estimates that Americans will spend $89.05 per person on average just to watch a bunch of guys chase the pigskin. (Obviously, those pricey TV purchases weigh heavily on the average.)

In short, the holiday has become “an extended Christmas,” says Mike Duda, chief executive of Johannes Leonardo, a New York-based creative agency.
So what’s driving this desire to spend? Retail industry experts and insiders say it’s because the game has become something much larger in popular culture, with a growing emphasis on what happens in between the plays (think goofy TV ads and the star-studded halftime show). In other words, we’re not just watching a bunch of guys chase the pigskin; we’re watching the biggest spectacle of the year.
In turn, that gives us an excuse to party, especially when it comes to food (and especially at a time when America has become a gourmet-obsessed nation). Gone are the days when buying a few bags of chips on game day sufficed. “Now you’re much more likely to order food in and order more specialty items,” says Andy Wiederhorn, chief executive of Buffalo’s Café, a restaurant chain that anticipates selling 32,000 wings on Super Bowl Sunday. (In 2012, that figure was 25,000 wings — proof positive of Wiederhorn’s point.)
And ordering in can go to geographical extremes. Goldbely, a mail-order company that specializes in shipping foods from restaurants and other purveyors around the country, says its business increases tenfold on Super Bowl weekend. (Naturally, one of the biggest sellers is a shipment of wings from Buffalo, N.Y.’s famed Anchor Bar.)
But adding to this bowl bonanza is the fact that retailers aren’t sitting idly by and waiting for customers to come. Increasingly, they’re treating game day as a national holiday on the order of, well, Christmas, and they’re heavily promoting sales and specials. In the case of big-screen TVs, prices are known to drop by as much as 10% in the days leading up to the Super Bowl. (It doesn’t hurt that electronics retailers often have leftover Christmas inventory to move.)
Of course, the day isn’t a gold mine for everyone. Movie theaters typically see a sizable decline in attendance, with the box-office take for films dropping by as much 30%. And performing arts centers often don’t even attempt to compete with the game, choosing to go dark instead.
But the day is ultimately a net win, says National Retail Federation spokesperson Kathy Grannis, since any business lost to the Super Bowl is likely “to be made up on another Sunday.”
Still, as big a retail deal as the Super Bowl has become, Grannis concedes the “holiday” isn't quite ready to topple Christmas and the overall winter holiday season, which equates to a $600 billion-plus event. On the other hand, the Super Bowl easily beats out St. Patrick’s Day, a $4.8 billion retail event

 

Romney Will Not Run

Mitt Romney has announced that he will not run for President but will rather work for other Republican nominees. How do you think this will affect the other Republican candidates chances?


http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/politics/romney-2016-call/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Our tax dollars pay for the Super Bowl — still a fan?

This is how your tax dollars paid for the Super Bowl


JasonNotte


The average NFL stadium cost about $250 million in public funding

You might as well watch the Super Bowl, America: You’re paying for it.
Forget about the league’s federal antitrust exemption dating back to the ’60s that allows it to yank any game off broadcast television it likes if it feels there aren’t enough backsides in the seats. Let’s forget about the same antitrust exemption that declared the NFL a nonprofit 501(c)(6) organization on par with a Chamber of Commerce or real estate board. Hey, let’s even forget a Federal Communications Commission ruling that, for almost 40 years, forbids cable and satellite providers to switch to a live feed of a game that was blacked out in a local market.
That’s the burden we’re all bearing equally: The welfare of a supposedly “private,” “free-market” league that needs its hand held by Uncle Sam just to conduct simple business. The average of nearly $250 million per stadium in public funding that state and local taxpayers have allocated to building 21 NFL stadiums since 1997 — not counting multi-hundred-million-dollar renovations to facilities including the Georgia Dome in Atlanta and Ralph Wilson Stadium in Buffalo? That’s just garnish.


Seattle is on the hook for the $300 million it paid for $460 million CenturyLink Stadium until the last bonds are settled in 2021. However, that city is still paying for the costs of its long-dead Kingdome through 2016. New England — and Massachusetts, specifically — got off light by comparison and only kicked in $72 million of Gillette Stadium’s $412 million cost. Much of that went straight to road, ramp and rail improvements around the stadium.
That leaves 30 NFL teams that didn’t make the cut, and 28 of them that took public money for their stadiums. (Only the New York Jets and Giants home at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., was built without public money.) Before Super Bowl XLIX kicks off in Glendale, Ariz. (which got hosed on a stadium deal in its own right), let’s take a look at the NFL cities across the country that pay the most for their Super Bowl experience.






















University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Ariz.
Cost: $455 million
Cost to taxpayers: $308 million
Know who’s really looking forward to hosting Super Bowl XLIX? If you do, let the mayor of Glendale know so he can offload hosting duties at the last minute. Not only did local government pick up 68% of the tab for this suburban monstrosity, but Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers told ESPN Magazine this month that “I totally believe we will lose money” on the Super Bowl this year. Not only that, but earlier this year he estimated that his city lost $1 million the last time it hosted a Super Bowl in 2008. In the past 10 years, the city has built this stadium, an arena for the NHL’s Coyotes and a spring-training facility for baseball’s Chicago White Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers. Building much of that before the recession left the city in hefty debt, and its experience with the 2008 Super Bowl made it realize that very little big-game windfall stays in Glendale. This year, most of the NFL’s Super Bowl festivities take place in Phoenix. As far as Glendale is concerned, they can keep it.




Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio
Cost: $449.8 million
Cost to taxpayers: $424.8 million
Even beyond Cincinnati, this is widely considered the worst stadium deal in NFL history.
The last time the Bengals threatened to move in 1995, they told the folks in Hamilton County that a new stadium would create jobs and bring boatloads of money into the area. The county ponied up 96% of the funding for Paul Brown Stadium without help from the state or any other willing donor and waited for the returns to roll in. They never materialized and the recent recession turned all the stadium’s modest benefits into huge losses. Stadium debt has contributed to an annual budget deficit that hovers around $30 million. Sales taxes have sputtered over the past decade, enhancing that debt and eliminating funding for programs such as a juvenile court and a property-tax cut promised as part of the stadium deal. In 2012, the team sought $43 million from the county for stadium renovations despite blacking out 10 home games in the two years prior. Last year, the Bengals squeezed another $7.5 million out of Hamilton County for a new scoreboard to fulfill the “state-of-the-art” clause of its terrible lease. The worst part? Because Paul Brown Stadium is a 20-year-old open-air facility that endures Cincinnati winters, Hamilton Country’s tax dollars are likely paying for a Super Bowl that will never be played in their stadium.






AT&T Stadium, Dallas, Texas
Cost: $1.2 billion
Cost to taxpayers: $444 million
In this corner of Texas, getting the Cowboys a new home by kicking in only 37% of the cost is considered a bargain. No, Arlington doesn’t get much credit when “Dallas” is still in the franchise name, but Arlington voters approved a 0.5% increase of the city’s sales tax, a 2% hike in the hotel-occupancy tax and a 5% uptick in car-rental tax to cover its bonds. After all, it wasn’t as if Irving objected all that much when the Cowboys called Texas Stadium home. However, when it finally landed Super Bowl XLV in 2010, a mishap prevented the installation of 1,200 seats and led to hefty triple refunds for disgruntled ticketholders and, eventually, a $5 million class-action suit against the NFL, the Cowboys and Jerry Jones. When even season ticketholders are suing you because they were forced to sit in folding chairs during the Super Bowl, maybe you’ve misallocated some of your stadium funding.




Vikings Stadium, Minneapolis, Minn.
Cost: $1.024 billion
Cost to taxpayers: $498 million
Ah, yes: The old “give me money or I’ll move to Los Angeles” gambit. Vikings owner Zygi Wilf played that one well and got the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis to go along for the ride. Forget the Vikings’ 54-year history in Minnesota and the NFC North: With the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome’s roof collapse moving games in 2010 and competing L.A. stadium plans just waiting for a team, Minnesota collectively freaked out and came up with a plan for a new stadium on the Metrodome site that the state would pay for through “charitable gambling.” Though the plan was approved in 2012, the funding portion seemed doomed from the start and led to a tax on cigarette inventory instead. Minneapolis, meanwhile, will end up paying $678 million over its 30-year payment plan once interest, operations and construction costs are factored in. It earned Minneapolis a Super Bowl hosting gig in 2018, but also got it a 150-page list of Super Bowl demands from the NFL that will only cost the host city and state more money. Nicely done, Minnesota.




Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, Ind.
Cost: $719.6 million
Cost to taxpayers: $619.5 million
Let’s see if we’re understanding you correctly, Indianapolis: You’re willing to wail over Bill Belichick and Tom Brady’s deflated balls for weeks on end after they played almost no role in a game your Colts lost 45-7, but you won’t make so much as a peep about Jim Irsay and company sticking you with 86% of your stadium’s cost? That $619.5 million is more than the total cost of all but four stadiums in the league: the New York area’s MetLife ($1.6 billion), AT&T Stadium in Dallas ($1.2 billion), Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara ($1.3 billion) and the Minnesota Vikings’ new stadium ($1.024 billion). That doesn’t count the $75 million in debt Indianapolis still owes on the long-since-imploded RCA Dome, which the city will be paying off until 2021. And how is Irsay — a man who was fined $500,000 by the NFL and suspended for six weeks last year for driving while intoxicated — repaid for this fleecing, which will have surrounding counties paying higher food and beverage taxes in perpetuity? By being awarded the 2012 Super Bowl and the 2010, 2015 and 2021 NCAA Men’s Final Four. None of which will reduce the local stadium-related tax burden or pay off the public portion of stadium debt any quicker.

The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation have just released their 21st annual Index of Economic Freedom.

The United States’ economic freedom score is 76.2, making its economy the 12th freest in the 2015 Index. Its score is 0.7 point higher than last year, with modest gains in six of the 10 economic freedoms, including control of government spending, outweighing a slight decline in business freedom.

Although the precipitous downward spiral in U.S. economic freedom since 2008 has come to a halt in the 2015 Index, a 1.6-point decline in overall economic freedom over the past five years reflects broad-based deteriorations in key policy areas, particularly those related to upholding the rule of law and limited government. Continuing to trail such comparable economies as Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada, America has been ranked “mostly free” since 2010.

The anemic post-recession recovery has been characterized by slow growth, high unemployment, a decrease in the number of Americans seeking work, and great uncertainty that has held back investment. Increased tax and regulatory burdens, aggravated by favoritism toward entrenched interests, have undercut America’s historically dynamic entrepreneurial growth.

p.s.  Rick found it in the WSJ.  
 

 

 

A New Solution to School Shootings

Throw cans at them! http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/27/guns-in-schools-defense-tactics-could-harm-kids.html

Disability/Mental disorder/Disabling mood disorder

1 in 3 on Disability Have Mental Disorder; 42.9% in D.C.

January 27, 2015 - 9:54 AM

---

By Ali Meyer

Subscribe to Ali Meyer RSS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter More Sharing Services 3

(CNSNews.com) - One in three, or 35.2 percent, of people getting federal disability insurance benefits have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to the latest data from the Social Security Administration (SSA).

Washington, D.C., the seat of the federal government, ranked in the top-ten list of states where disabled beneficiaries were diagnosed with mental problems.

In 2013, the latest data from SSA show there were 10,228,364 disabled beneficiaries, up 139,625 from 2012 when there were 10,088,739 disabled beneficiaries.

Disabled beneficiaries have increased 49.7 percent from a decade ago in 2003 when there were 6,830,714 beneficiaries; and the number is up 14.3 percent from the 8,945,376 beneficiaries in 2009, the year President Obama took office.

The largest "diagnostic group" for disabled beneficiaries was a mental disorder. Of the 10,228,364 disabled people receiving federal disability benefits in December 2013, according to the report, 3,599,417, or 35.2 percent, were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

"Musculoskeletal system and connective tissue” problems accounted for the second largest group of disabled beneficiaries. Of the 10,228,364 disabled people receiving federal disability benefits in December 2013, 2,829,808, or 27.7 percent, had been diagnosed with a musculoskeletal problem.
In Washington, D.C., according to the report, 42.9 percent of disabled beneficiaries as of December 2013 had been diagnosed with a mental disorder. Massachusetts and New Hampshire led the nation in this metric with 49.9 percent of disabled beneficiaries diagnosed with a mental disorder.

At the bottom of the list were Alabama (28.8% diagnosed with a mental disorder); Georgia (29.1%), South Carolina (29.7%), and Arkansas and Louisiana (30.2% each).
Within the mental disorders diagnostic group, the most common specific diagnosis for disabled beneficiaries was a “mood disorder.” According to the report, as of December 2013, 14 percent of all disabled beneficiaries in the United States had such a disorder.

A mood disorder, otherwise known as an affective disorder, says SSA, is “characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic or depressive syndrome. Mood refers to a prolonged emotion that colors the whole psychic life; it generally involves either depression or elation.”

To be determined to be suffering a disabling mood disorder, a person must exhibit a combination of factors, including such things as “appetite disturbance with change in weight; or sleep disturbance; or psychomotor agitation or retardation; or decreased energy; or feelings of guilt or worthlessness; or difficulty concentrating or thinking; or thoughts of suicide; or hallucinations, delusions, or paranoid thinking.”
Massachusetts led the nation in this category with 22.7 percent of those with mental disorders also diagnosed with a mood disorder. Washington, D.C., lagged slightly behind the national percentage, with 13.9 percent of its disabled beneficiaries having been diagnosed with a mood disorder.

The report also examines beneficiaries who have filed for workers’ compensation or public disability benefits. The report finds that the number one diagnosis for those who have filed are because of “musculoskeletal system and connective tissue,” with 59.8% of those who have filed having that diagnosis. The second highest group, or 10.6 percent of those who filed, were diagnosed with a “mood disorder.”

A disabled worker, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA), is a “beneficiary who worked in covered employment long enough to be insured and who had been working recently in covered employment prior to disability onset.”

“Individuals are considered to be disabled only if their physical or mental impairment(s) are of such severity that they are not only unable to do their previous work but cannot--because of their age, education, or work experience--engage in any other kind of substantial gainful activity that exists in the national economy,” says SSA.

Are we growing soft as a nation

It might be hard to believe, but Tuesday is only the twelfth time New York City has cancelled school because of snow since 1978.
With a historic nor’easter that had threatened to drop as much as 36 inches of snow on the Northeast, the ever-resilient city of New York was forced to give students a very rare snow day. Had this been a normal snowstorm, dropping, say, even a foot of snow, students would still have had to come in to class.
How much snow does it take to cancel school where you live? Reddit user Alexandr Trubetskoy put together this map last year, pulling data from hundreds of Reddit responses and NOAA’s average tabulation of annual snow days. The map shows an estimated amount of snow that would generally shutter schools in each U.S. county.


Throughout the Northeast, Midwest, and Canada, you can plan on going to school with anything less than a foot of snow on the ground. Sorry, kids. Throughout the South and along the West Coast, they get excited for flurries. All it can take is “any snow” to close school for the day.
The map touches on how different regions approach inclement winter weather. As Trubetskoy notes, the Midwest and Great Plains not only consider snow and ice accumulation in their cancellation policy, but also wind chill. Meanwhile, the mere prediction of snow is enough to cancel school in the South.
Trubetskoy explains that major cities like Chicago and New York have considerably more resources than their neighboring areas, and thus will need considerable accumulation to cancel school. Case in point, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was heavily criticized in 2014 for keeping schools open after a nor’easter dumped over 12 inches of snow in the city. From 1983 to 1995, New York City schools had zero snow days.
Trubetskoy makes one interesting point about the policy of school closures over the last few decades: “To everyone saying ‘I grew up in so-and-so and we never closed school,’ policies have changed in the last 20 years to make closing a much more common occurrence. Just because schools stayed open back then doesn’t mean they do these days.”
Data generally suggests that the policy of snow day school cancellation is, in fact, rising.
As Nathan Yau at FlowingData adds, the Trubetskoy map is in-line with average snowfall totals in each state: The more snowfall, the more rigorous the cancellation policy.

A Third Major Political Party

Koch Brothers’ Budget of $889 Million for 2016 Is on Par With Both Parties’ Spending

By NICHOLAS CONFESSOREJAN. 26, 2015

Photo

Charles Koch in 2012. The Kochs and their advisers have built a robust array of political organizations. Credit Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle, via Associated Press

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The spending goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican Parties. It would require a significant financial commitment from the Kochs and roughly 300 other donors they have recruited over the years, and covers both the presidential and congressional races. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.

Hundreds of conservative donors recruited by the Kochs gathered over the weekend for three days of issue seminars, strategy sessions and mingling with rising elected officials. These donors represent the largest concentration of political money outside the party establishment, one that has achieved enormous power in Republican circles in recent years.

Photo

David Koch in June. The brothers' financial goal, announced on Monday at the annual Koch winter donor retreat in Palm Springs, Calif., effectively transforms the Koch organization into a third major political party. Credit Travis Heying/The Wichita Eagle, via Associated Press

Now the Kochs’ network will embark on its largest drive ever to influence legislation and campaigns across the country, leveraging Republican control of Congress and the party’s dominance of state capitols to push for deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government. In 2012, the Kochs’ network spent just under $400 million, an astonishing sum at the time. The $889 million spending goal for 2016 would put it on track to spend nearly as much as the campaigns of each party’s presidential nominee.

The Kochs’ efforts will put enormous fund-raising pressure on Democrats and liberal outside groups. Allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who appears to be preparing for a likely presidential campaign in 2016, expect that she will need to bring in more money than President Obama, the most successful fund-raiser in presidential history, and a “super PAC” supporting her is seeking to raise as much as $300 million in the coming months.

“It’s no wonder the candidates show up when the Koch brothers call,” said David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “That’s exponentially more money than any party organization will spend. In many ways, they have superseded the party.”

The group’s budget, disclosed by a conference attendee, reflects the rising ambition and expanded reach of the Koch operation, which has sought to distinguish itself from other outside groups by emphasizing the role of donors over consultants and political operatives.

While the Koch’s expansive network houses groups with discretely political functions — a data and analytics firm, a state-focused issue-advocacy group and affinity groups aimed at young voters and Hispanics — it also includes groups like Freedom Partners, a trade organization overseen by Koch advisers that plans the retreat and helps corral contributions; Americans for Prosperity, a national grass-roots group; and Concerned Veterans for America, which organizes conservative veterans

While almost no Republican Party leaders were invited to the Koch event, it has become a coveted invitation for the party’s rising stars, for whom the gathered billionaires and multimillionaires are a potential source of financing for campaigns and super PACs. Officials said this year’s conference was the largest ever.

At least five potential presidential candidates were invited this year, and four attended, including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. On Sunday evening, three of them — Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas — took part in a candidate forum on economic issues.

The Kochs are longtime opponents of campaign disclosure laws. Unlike the parties, their network is constructed chiefly of nonprofit groups that are not required to reveal donors. That makes it almost impossible to tell how much of the money is provided by the Kochs — among the wealthiest men in the country — and how much by other donors.

The two brothers and their aides have begun to take steps to relax the strict secrecy that has long surrounded much of their political efforts. After spending the 2012 campaign as the Democrats’ favored punching bags, Charles and David Koch have each granted a series of interviews to explain their views and philosophy. Their privately held firm, Koch Industries, has mounted a soft-focus advertising campaign called “We Are Koch,” featuring the company’s employees.

Last summer, Freedom Partners established the network’s first super PAC, allowing it to run more openly political advertising in the run-up to the 2014 midterm election. The move also required disclosing some of the network’s other donors. Trusts controlled by the Kochs provided about $4 million of the super PAC’s $25 million budget.

This year, Koch aides also provided — for the first time — limited access to the winter conference events and allowed reporters to view live video of the candidate forum on Sunday night.

As the three senators addressed the audience of rich donors — effectively an audition for the 2016 primary — they dismissed a question about whether the wealthy had too much influence in politics. At times they seemed to be addressing an audience of two: the Kochs themselves, now among the country’s most influential conservative power brokers.

Mr. Cruz gave an impassioned defense of his hosts as job creators and the victims of unfair attacks by Democrats, while Mr. Rubio suggested that only liberals supported campaign finance restrictions, so as to empower what he said were their allies in Hollywood and the news media.

Snow Job

Meteorologists: Sorry about getting that blizzard thing wrong

By Chris Perez

January 27, 2015 | 9:54am

Modal Trigger

Disgruntled commuters wait for a bus at 179th St., and Hillside Ave. Photo: Ellis Kaplan

Meteorologists across the Northeast were scrambling to get back in good graces with the public on Tuesday — apologizing on Twitter for forecasting the “historic blizzard” that never was.
“My deepest apologies to many key decision makers and so many members of the general public,” tweeted National Weather Service meteorologist Gary Szatkowski. “This is a big forecast miss.”

Mayor Thanks Sharpton for Climate Change Work, During Blizzard Report

by Ian Hanchett26 Jan 20151102

Bridgeport, CT Mayor Bill Finch (D) thanked MSNBC anchor Al Sharpton for “fighting the good fight on climate change” during a report on Winter Storm Juno on Monday’s “PoliticsNation.”
After urging residents to stay off the roads and reporting that emergency workers were ensuring that the elderly and homeless population were taking care of, Finch told Sharpton “thank you for your show, Reverend, you’ve been fighting the good fight on climate change, and we can see the crazy climate here, and we’d like to have a little bit more of you down in Washington.”


Local notes:
Last night at about 11PM a young "meteorologist" in a magnificent suit on our Public Broadcasting System talked about the massive storm and flooding that would impact our area. Predictions were 15"-18," we ended up with 2"-3" and the sun is coming out at 11AM. He mentioned areas being impacted by major flooding due to "Global Rising Sea Levels." It was apparent that he was well schooled in "Earth Health matters" with little of no experience about the fickle nature of Atlantic Nor' Easters. Weather is weather. It snows in these parts in January. Get over it.

Ohio, Warren County File Lawsuit against Obama Administration over Obamacare Taxes

The hits keep on coming.

“This tax assessment by the Obama Administration is an unprecedented attempt to destroy the balance of authority between the federal government and the states,” said Attorney General DeWine. “The $5.3 million Ohio is being taxed is money that could be used for education, public safety, and roads and bridges. The states are not the federal government’s tax collectors, and the Obama Administration should refund these illegal taxes immediately.”

An interesting problem.  The Federal Government can levy taxes on citizens as provided by the constitution and ratified by the SCOTUS.

Can the Federal Government levy taxes on a state or local government?  

Is it time for another waiver?

Scotus soon to hear the latest on the ACA

Should be interesting.  Will the SCOTUS rule as the law is written which denies subsidies to states without exchanges or will they rue on what the Dem's meant when the law was written.

1.  The plain text of the statute denies subsidies to people who live in states without an exchange. This reading is not absurd, because it creates a powerful incentive for states to create an exchange in the first place.

 2.  There was no split in the circuits — the lower courts actually seemed to accept the Obama administration’s misreading of its own law. If the Court agreed with the lower courts, or wasn’t sure about it, they could have just allowed the issue to further percolate (as the Justices themselves will often say when they pass on the opportunity to take a case). The grant of certiorari (which takes four Justices) only makes sense if a majority wants to overrule the lower courts quickly.

3.  The Court will be acting in agreement with, rather than against, majority wishes. The last election gives the court political cover to cut back on Obamacare. Given the election results, a majority of Americans support repeal or radical restructuring of Obamacare. If the Court rules against Obama here, it will be acting with the support of a majority of Congress.

Will the SCOTUS rule the subsidies are legal as invalidating the subsidy will affect millions of people?  But then again, they may actually rule on the law as written.  

Time For a New Tax?

This appeared in Bloomberg News:
 
Mike Huckabee thinks, inspired by the president’s daughters’ love of Beyonce, that America is in the midst of a values crisis. But in Japan, the worry is about a libido crisis. The birthrate is falling fast. By 2060, the population is expected to go down by a third, and, by 2100, if trends continue, by 61 percent. In 2011, sales of adult diapers in Japan exceeded those of baby diapers. It’s an urgent national problem: there isn’t enough procreation.


To examine Japanese attitudes toward sex, the Japan Family Planning Association interviewed 3,000 subjects, both male and female, about their sex lives. The group found that 49.3 percent of participants (48.3 percent of men, 50.1 percent of women) had not had sex in the past month. 21.3 percent of married men said they were too tired after work (versus 17.8 percent of women). Of men, 15.7 percent answered that they were no longer interested, after having children. 23.8 percent of women said sex was “bothersome.”


There are a number of diagnoses for this aversion to the bedroom. Morinaga Takuro, an economic analyst and TV personality, believes this has something to do with attractiveness. He has suggested a “handsome tax”: “If we impose a handsome tax on men who look good to correct the injustice only slightly, then it will become easier for ugly men to find love, and the number of people getting married will increase.”

Taxing the interest on 529 plans.

The latest war on the middle class comes with the taxing of 529 college savings plans – which currently grow tax-free. They are very popular among middle-class families who are trying to responsibly save for their children’s college tuition.

The White House has proposed taxing these plans as a way to “simplify the tax code.

More than 7 million families have saved money in 529 savings plans, believing that the future earnings on those plans would not be taxed and that they would receive tax cuts in their respective states. Obama’s proposal would directly hurt these families by taxing their savings as income, when they are already sacrificing to save.

What will the new tax be used for?

Paying for 2 years of community college. How does this make any sense.  We encourage people to responsibly save for their children's education and then tax the increase in value of the savings that they would use to pay for their child's college to pay for someone else to send their child to college for free.

I guess if you can save your wealthy enough to pay a tax for those that don't save.  Are politicians sending the wrong message to America.  Spend today, we will help you tomorrow?

A Tale Of Two Senators Who Grew Up Poor And Went Opposite Directions

Senator Joni Ernst (R) Iowa
I Got Mine, Screw You!
The GOP attempted to relate to the poor and working class when Joni Ernst, during her State of the Union rebuttal, painted herself as a poor Iowan girl who had to stuff bread bags over her shoes to keep them from being ruined by the rain. She wasn’t ruined, because apparently many of her Iowan school friends were just as poor and had to do the same thing. It was certainly a tender moment for the GOP. Ernst really showed people how one can overcome poverty to be something great.
Except she forgot to mention one tiny thing: her family received over $460,000 in federal subsidies (the very ones Ernst’s party wants to get rid of).


According to The District Sentinel:


Ernst’s father, Richard Culver, was given $14,705 in conservation payments and $23,690 in commodity subsidies by the federal government – with all but twelve dollars allocated for corn support. Richard’s brother, Dallas Culver, benefited from $367,141 in federal agricultural aid, with over $250,000 geared toward corn subsidies. And the brothers’ late grandfather Harold Culver received $57,479 from Washington — again, mostly corn subsidies — between 1995 and 2001. He passed away in January 2003.”


And there’s nothing quite like helping the family business out when it comes to the government. Ernst’s father, who also owned a construction company, was given $215,665 in contracts from the Montgomery County government while Ernst was an auditor.
Ernst is an individual who is “philosophically opposed” to the very subsidies that kept her family afloat. A perfect example of the “I got mine, screw you” that we constantly see from the right. After the federal and local government has dished out hundreds of thousands to Ernst and her family, she doesn’t want it anymore, and now that she is a big shot senator, she doesn’t care anymore. She doesn’t want Obamacare, she doesn’t want to raise the minimum wage, she doesn’t want paid sick leave, she certainly isn’t a supporter of the American worker, and she doesn’t want subsidies, of any kind, that helps people get a leg up in our economy. It’s very mind boggling that someone who received so much help from our federal government doesn’t want anyone else to get it.
As Democrats, we shouldn’t care that Ernst and her family received subsidies. What we should care about is the disgusting hypocrisy and lack of compassion for other people Ernst has displayed.







Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) Massachusetts




I Didn’t Get Anything, So I Want To Help You!
Then you have someone like Elizabeth Warren, who does want to give that same opportunity to the people. Warren isn’t from Iowa, and she’s certainly much older than Joni Ernst is (Ernst was born in 1970, Warren in 1949). But like her Republican colleague, she grew up relatively poor, but in Oklahoma. Warren’s foundation of working-class parents was rocked to its core when her father, Donald, suffered a heart attack and lost his job. Their house, which was already run down, was an inch away from being taken from them. They had to move. So Warren, at the age of 12, got a job as a waitress and her mother worked at Sears.
Warren, as a child, never went to a museum, never rode in a taxi, and had never had been to a ballet. And guess what? She never received the copious amounts of subsidies that Ernst had. In fact, Warren never received any government assistance. The only reason she was able to afford college was because she received a scholarship for being an amazing student (Ernst received federal aid to go to college, and she now wants to do away with such aid).
Warren, as everyone knows, has become the face and the champion for the working middle class and the poor in the Senate. She supports Obamacare, she supports raising the minimum wage, she supports paid sick leave, she supports unions, and she supports closing loopholes that have allowed the richest to avoid their fair share in taxes (which have burdened the middle class).
Elizabeth Warren exemplifies the “I didn’t get anything, but I don’t want you to ever feel the same way I did” mentality that is the Democratic, Progressive, Liberal way.
How can two Senators, with very similar backgrounds, be so polar opposite in how they view the world? Simple. One got a lot of money and feels entitled (there’s the real entitlement, GOP) and the other is humbled. One is threatened by people rising above their means and succeeding, the other champions it. One wants to keep the class of people poor, stupid, and desperate to win re-election while the other wants them to have a seat at the table.
This is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Who will you vote for in 2016?




Author: Ryan Denson January 24, 2015 11:10 pm

Eighty People Control Half of the World's Wealth and All of the Elected Officials

Sunday, 25 January 2015 09:24 By Crystal Shepeard, Care2 | Report


The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting began in Davos, Switzerland.  The meeting convenes “global leaders from across business, government, international organizations, academia and civil society for strategic dialogues which map the key transformations reshaping the world.”  The hope is that the dialogue will lead to action on the part of the participating nations to improve conditions in their own communities, with an understanding that we are all globally connected.  The idea is that the actions in one community can affect another anywhere in the world.
The current state of global economic inequality shows just how tenuous that connection is.
In what has now become tradition, Oxfam International, a confederation of organizations dedicated to fighting poverty, issued a report on the current state of economic inequality. Last year’s report sent shockwaves through the world by announcing that just 85 people controlled the same amount of wealth as the bottom 3 billion people combined.  That was even more dramatic than 2010 when it took 388 people to control that much wealth.
Today, the bulk of the wealth is in the hands of just 80 people.
The reasons for the dramatic change are much as they have always been. The global recession had disproportionate negative effects on those in the middle and bottom of the economic scale. As most of the population slid down the scale, the recovery went quickly upwards. While the majority of the population relied on income, which decreased or disappeared, the rich had assets. Those assets grew in value just as the returns on investments began to bounce back. The rich got richer simply because with assets, it’s difficult to not remain wealthy.


Oxfam releases the report every year just as global leaders gather in Davos because the key to reversing the trend lies in the hands of government. The problem requires a coordinated global effort to tackle inequality, such as punishing tax dodging by corporations and wealthy individuals. Other initiatives include: Universal public services (i.e. health and education), shifting the burden of taxation from labor and consumption to capital and wealth, living wages, equal pay, and adequate safety nets that include a minimum income.
Interestingly, many of these policies have been promoted – and rejected – here in America.
Thirty-five of the 80 individuals controlling wealth hold American passports. Many of the names are familiar, such as Bill Gates, the Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, George Soros, Warren Buffett, both Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. It is also no surprise that many of these names are often seen on the same donor lists of politicians across the nation, Congress and our recent presidents. The Oxfam report notes than nearly 12 percent of political contributions come from the list of 80 billionaires.
In the first few weeks of the 114th Congress, legislation was introduced to roll back regulations on Wall Street, as well as consumer protection laws that have been in place. While voters have repeatedly said they want improved education, universal healthcare and a real chance at the American dream, our elected officials seem to not hear the public’s demands. These same elected officials are dependent on the money from the wealthiest, but are also responsible for creating policies that would reverse the flow of that wealth towards a more equitable distribution.


What we have here is not a failure to communicate but a clear and dangerous conflict of interest.
The inability to invest in assets, such as houses, savings, or highly expensive art has left the majority of the world with little to show for their hard work.  Global poverty has continued to rise and it’s only going to get worse. Oxfam has predicted that if we do nothing, the wealthiest one percent of the world will control the same amount of wealth as the other 99 percent do combined.
The estimated time of arrival for this global wealth distribution is next year.

Did John Boehner Just Commit Treason

Author: Joe Fletcher January 24, 2015 9:34 am


It has been recently confirmed that John Boehner has invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before congress about Iran, in the spring. The move is a complete slap in the face to President Obama; it is also very possibly an act of treason.
Before that though, the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, and the “Zionification” of the new GOP has to be known in order to understand the current situation.
Netanyahu and Obama have had a dicey relationship essentially since the Israeli Prime Minister was voted into office. Obama has spoken out publicly against Israel constructing settlements in occupied Palestine. A nine-month moratorium that halted new construction on Israeli settlements, that was requested from the White House ended in early 2010. Joe Biden lambasted Netanyahu over the matter. Later that year, U.S peace talks between Israel and Palestine failed miserably.
It turned out that 2011 was a pivotal year in the Netanyahu-Obama saga, cementing the two’s relationship from cool to downright icy. Unaware that a microphone was turned on during the G-20 summit in Cannes, France, the then French President Nicolas Sarkozy was heard saying that he “cannot stand” Netanyahu and called him a “liar.” To which Obama responded, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day.” The Atlantic has a great article on the sentiments towards Netanyahu that have come out of the Whitehouse over the past few years.
It was at this point that Netanyahu seemed to be working against Obama in the upcoming 2012 election. Vox describes the events wonderfully reporting:


“… in 2011 Netanyahu started going a step further, and appeared to be working to actively remove Obama from power. During the 2012 election cycle, Netanyahu and his government were increasingly critical of Obama and supportive of Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for whom he at times appeared to be actively campaigning. Netanyahu’s criticisms of Obama were so pointed that some of Obama’s opponents cut a campaign ad out of them. It became a joke within Israel that Netanyahu saw himself not as the leader of a sovereign country, but as the Republican senator from Israel.”


This was a major moment for the GOP, Democrats, and Zionists, that essentially sealed the fate for the GOP to become the new “party of Israel.” It was also in 2012 that Netanyahu demanded that Obama take a stand against Iran. This and other subsequent statements have demonstrated an over stepping of bounds in regards to Netanyahu’s role in influencing U.S foreign policy. Due to the amount of aid the U.S gives to Israel, Obama has played the role of the master, and Israel the dog. Netanyahu has started nipping at the hand that feeds him, with U.S Republicans coaxing the Prime Minister the whole time.
Now in 2015, the U.S is preparing for talks with Iran about their nuclear program. Obama has declared that he does not think that new sanctions against Iran will make any progress towards reaching a deal with them over their nuclear program. This is in stark contrast to the right wing’s generally held belief the U.S should bomb the f%#k out of Iran.
So now, Boehner has revealed that he has invited Netanyahu to speak to congress about what should be done with Iran. An Op-ed in Truth Out describes three possible scenarios where this could qualify as treason. Here are the two more likely scenarios.


Under the Logan Act :


“Established back in 1799, the Logan Act makes it illegal for unauthorized American citizens to negotiate with foreign governments.
Violation of the act is a felony, and comes with a punishment of up to three years in prison.
In order to prosecute Boehner under the Logan Act, there would have to be sufficient proof that he was acting “without authority” when he asked Netanyahu to come and speak to Congress, and that “authority” isn’t specified in the law…”


Alternatively, under the Section 441e of FEC law that:


“…makes it illegal for, “a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national.
In other words, if Speaker Boehner were to accept campaign money from Netanyahu, or use the speech to help raise money for Republicans in any way, he would be guilty of violating FEC law. Somebody needs to look into this, particularly to see if the hands of any of the Republican billionaires who obsess on Israel issues are involved in this.
Section 441e also makes it illegal for “a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election.”


The move to have Netanyahu speak to congress regarding Iran is a new extreme in the GOP’s plan to usurp Obama’s ability to govern. It also shows that Netanyahu is willing to play along; despite predictions it may be his undoing (if he is still in office, the Israeli elections are coming up soon). Whether or not any legal actions against Boehner come to fruition, he is asking the leader of a foreign government that has a primary concern to benefit Israel, not the United States. Perhaps, that is enough to for the people of the United States to decide on their own that he is a traitor.










Fox News Actually Expresses Shock And Outrage Over Boehner And Netanyahu Undermining President Obama




Author: Stephen D Foster Jr January 24, 2015 8:24 pm


On Friday, the world watched in disbelief as Fox News actually defended the honor and office of President Obama in the wake of Speaker Boehner violating US protocol by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to Congress. In other news, pigs are flying.
During a segment on Fox, host Shepard Smith discussed the scandal with fellow host Chris Wallace, and both men were absolutely shocked and outraged by the actions of the top Republican in the House of Representatives.
On Wednesday, Boehner announced that he invited Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress. The problem is that Boehner did this without clearing the invitation with the White House, which is protocol.
“The protocol would suggest that the leader of one country would contact the leader of another country when he’s traveling there. This particular event seems to be a departure from that protocol,” said press secretary Josh Earnest.
Furthermore, Netanyahu is specifically going to speak to Congress in an effort to trash Obama’s foreign policy in a deliberate attempt to wreck US nuclear negotiations with Iran, negotiations which a majority of Americans support.
You see, President Obama wants to use diplomacy to ease tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States. That means securing an agreement that prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon while allowing them to use nuclear power as another source of energy in the Middle Eastern nation. But Republicans are literally trying to sabotage these efforts by seeking more harsh sanctions against Iran, which would be seen an act of American aggression at a time when the State Department and White House are seeking mutual peace.
Since the announcement, Beohner and Republicans have felt a major backlash. But the last place they thought they’d receive outrage from, if at all, is Fox News. Well, that shipped sailed on Friday.
Shephard Smith began by reading a quote by former Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. Indyk slammed Republicans for crossing the line and disrespecting the president. “Netanyahu is using the Republican Congress for a photo-op for his election campaign, and the Republicans are using Bibi for their campaign against Obama,” Indyk said. “Unfortunately, the U.S. relationship will take the hit. It would be far wiser for us to stay out of their politics and for them to stay out of ours.”
In response, Chris Wallace said he agreed “100 percent,” with the statement and proceeded to express his own disappointment with what Boehner and the Republicans did:“And to make you get a sense of really how, forgive me, wicked, this whole thing is, the Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States for two hours on Tuesday, Ron Dermer. The ambassador, never mentioned the fact that Netanyahu was in negotiations and finally agreed to come to Washington, not to see the president, but to go to Capitol Hill, speak to a joint session of congress and criticize the president’s policy. I have to say I’m shocked.”


Shephard Smith for his part critized the Israeli government for apparently thinking that “we don’t pay attention and that we’re just a bunch of complete morons, the United States citizens, as if we wouldn’t pick up on what’s happening here.” Smith also suggested that Netanyahu may end up backing out of the invitation because of the level of outrage being expressed in Israel and in America.
Wallace called the breach of protocol “a deliberate and pretty egregious snub” that smacks of “dicey politics.”


This is a serious breach of protocol that is blatantly disrespectful toward President Obama. It’s entirely unprecedented for a member of Congress to invite a foreign leader to address the legislative branch without seeking authorization or getting cooperation from the executive. Can you imagine how outraged Republicans would have been had the Democratic Speaker of the House stabbed President Reagan in the back by inviting a foreign leader to speak before Congress without his blessing in a deliberate effort to stop nuclear talks with Gorbachev? They’d be calling for treason charges.
And quite frankly, Republicans are guilty of breaking multiple US laws by inviting a foreign leader to speak to Congress to undermine their own president.
First, we could be talking about treason, but that won’t be as easy to prosecute. However, a law passed in 1799 known as the Logan Act made it illegal for any unauthorized American citizen to negotiate with foreign leaders. That power belongs with the executive branch. That law is still in effect today, which means Boehner and the Republicans are breaking a law established by our own Founding Fathers. Boehner’s treachery also comes three weeks after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham pledged allegiance to Netanyahu during a trip to Israel.
And if you thought this incident couldn’t get more outrageous, consider this. In November, House Republicans seriously considered banning President Obama from delivering his State of the Union Address. In other words, they were going to ban their own president from speaking, but are absolutely giddy about Netanyahu delivering a speech of his own. It’s like Republicans believe Netanyahu is the real President of the United States.
This proves once and for all that Republicans have zero allegiance to this nation. Instead of supporting President Obama and his foreign policy, Republicans have chosen to follow a foreign leader instead and are actively conspiring with him to sabotage their own leader. Honestly, that is treason. Every last Republican who allows Netanyahu to speak in March should be tried for treason or at the very least, they should be forced to resign or be impeached. They are literally endangering crucial diplomatic talks that could bring about peace and do the very thing that the GOP and Israelis want the most: prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. But it sounds like what Republicans and Israelis want is to spark a full scale war.
The White House has already promised that there will be a price to pay for the utter lack of disrespect shown by Netanyahu. Ring of Fire reports that an unnamed senior White House official said,


“There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”


Perhaps that price should be the loss of the $3 billion worth of military aid Israel receives each year from the United States. That should send a pretty strong message.

And Then Came Bush

This from Bloomberg News:


Bush told potential supporters that he had no interest in tactics that would help him win conservative votes in the primaries but make it harder to win the general election, according to the attendees. An ugly campaign victory, he told the groups, would do nothing to build the consensus needed to solve the nation's problems.


Bush met with about 40 people on Tuesday at the home of Fred Malek, an influential Republican with ties to President George H.W. Bush's administration. Bush was joined by his sister Dorothy and brother Marvin.


In that meeting, according to three attendees, Bush described his belief in personal diplomacy abroad, adding that he has traveled to China multiple times over past four years.


He also said that if he runs for president he looked forward to a vigorous debate with those in his party who would scale back U.S. involvement abroad, what one Republican in attendance described as a thinly veiled shot at Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who is also weighing a presidential campaign.

A New Romney

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Outlining his possible rationale for a third presidential bid, Mitt Romney said Wednesday night that political leaders in both parties are failing to address the nation's most pressing problems - climate change, poverty and education reform, among them - as he acknowledged lessons learned from his failed 2012 presidential campaign.

"Why run for office in the first place?" Romney asked aloud as he addressed a sold-out crowd of about 3,000 at an investment management conference in Utah. "The major challenges that this country faces are not being dealt with by leaders in Washington."

He continued: "On both sides of the aisle, we just haven't been able to take on and try and make progress on the major issues of our day."

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee's appearance was his second public address since privately telling potential donors earlier in the month that he's considering a 2016 presidential campaign. He used his remarks to broaden a populist platform he first touched on last week that marks a sharp shift from the rhetoric of his first two campaigns.

While hitting familiar Republican points criticizing the size of the federal debt, Romney at times sounded like a Democrat, calling for President Barack Obama and other leaders in Washington to act on common liberal priorities such as climate change, poverty and education.

"I'm one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that," he said of climate change, charging that federal leaders have failed to enact global agreements needed to tackle the problem.

Black/White in America

Aborting black America

The ‘black lives matter’ slogan excludes the unborn

Illustration on the rate of black babies being aborted in America by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times more >

By J. Kenneth Blackwell - - Wednesday, January 21, 2015

“Black lives matter” has become the slogan of anti-police protests across the nation, but the target of the protests is so misplaced that the motives of the so-called civil rights leaders behind the movement must be questioned. Do they really care about black lives? Or are they cynically exploiting isolated incidents, such as the death of Michael Brown, to inflame the black population and advance their own political interests?

Today, on the somber anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, it’s time for black leaders to face up to the real danger threatening black lives in America. It isn’t the police. According to an anti-police brutality organization, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, 313 blacks were killed by “police, security guards and vigilantes” in 2013. It isn’t even black criminals, who, as Rudy Giuliani famously pointed out on “Meet the Press,” are responsible for 93 percent of violent deaths among blacks. Sources estimate that between 6,000 and 8,000 blacks are murdered each year.

No, the greatest danger to blacks is found precisely where we ought to be safest: in our mothers’ wombs. In 2010, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 138,539 black babies were aborted.

Thankfully, abortion is on the decline in America, down 3 percent between 2007 and 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Strikingly, the number of surgical abortion clinics has plummeted, from 2,176 in 1991 to 551 today. Nevertheless, the CDC report that in 2010, a staggering 765,651 abortions were performed in the United States. Black women continue to have the highest abortion rate of any ethnic group, with a gruesome 483 abortions for every 1,000 live births.

The bottom line? I’ll say it again: 138,539 black babies, nearly one baby in three, were killed in the womb in 2010. According to the CDC, between 2007 and 2010, innocent black babies were victimized in nearly 36 percent of the abortion deaths in the United States, though blacks represent only 12.8 percent of the population. Some say the abortion capital of America is New York City. According to LifeSiteNews, the city’s Department of Health reported that in 2012, more black babies were aborted (31,328) than born (24,758). That’s 55.9 percent of black babies killed before birth. Blacks represented 42.4 percent of all abortions.

Legalized abortion is working out exactly as Margaret Sanger intended. Sanger, the founder of the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was part of the eugenics movement back in the 1930s. Her goal was to use abortion to cull what she considered inferior races from the human gene pool. According to Sanger, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” She opened her first abortion clinics in inner cities, and it’s no accident that even today, “79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are located in black or minority neighborhoods.”

We mustn’t forget that babies aren’t the only victims of abortion. Sadly, more and more of the mothers are suffering and dying as well. Though many people continue to deny it, the link between abortion and breast cancer has been amply documented, and this deadly consequence of abortion is plaguing greater and greater numbers of black women.

Ironically, black women used to suffer from breast cancer less frequently than white women. Not any longer. The Black Women’s Health Imperative notes that according to an American Cancer Society report, black women now develop breast cancer almost as frequently as whites, and are more likely to die from the disease. LifeSiteNews also cites an American Cancer Society report that black women under age 40 now are more likely to develop breast cancer than their white counterparts. They can thank Margaret Sanger — and some of today’s so-called civil rights leaders.

Sanger relied on black ministers to act as Judas goats leading their sisters to abortion mills. According to LifeSiteNews, Sanger wrote in 1939, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Some black leaders are still acting as Judas goats today. LifeSiteNews cites black pro-life activist Ryan Bomberger: “Back in 2005, the NAACP praised the high black abortion rate as compared to the percentage of the population at a NARAL fundraising gala. When more black babies are aborted than are born alive in NYC and the NAACP responds by supporting Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo’s radical abortion expansion via the misnamed ‘Women’s Equality Act,’ one can understand how the targeting of minorities continues unabated.”

Abortion is the greatest threat to black lives in America today. People who claim to represent the black community while also abetting the black holocaust — abortion — are hypocrites. Any “civil rights leader” who genuinely believes that “black lives matter” should be working to see that every black baby is accorded the very first civil right — the right to life.

• J. Kenneth Blackwell is a policy board member of the American Civil Rights Union.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/21/j-kenneth-blackwell-black-abortions-a-crisis-in-am/#ixzz3PYVaoehF
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter