Funny or Die is a comedy video website which features both original and user-generated content. One of their regular video sketches is actor Zach Galifianakis’ “Between Two Ferns”. The show features Galifianakis interviewing various celebrities in an awkward way. This week’s installment was an interview of President Obama.
The results are probably one of the funniest things I have seen in a while. Although, the spot is clearly attempting to “plug” Obamacare, it’s too fun to get upset over this one!
Highlights from the video include President Obama’s title as ‘community organizer’ and questioning the spelling of his name. Also, Galifianakis calls Obama a nerd. When Michelle is brought up, President Obama says he won’t let Galifianakis anywhere near her. Make sure to watch the video for all of the hilarity.
Why, it's almost as if responsible, conservative governance works:
Wisconsin will sell $294.8 million in general-obligation refunding bonds this week in a negotiated sale as the state projects a budget surplus of almost $1 billion. Surging tax revenue is driving improved fiscal performance in Wisconsin, with a population of 5.7 million. The improvement in the state’s tax collections ranked seventh in the nation during the 12 months ended in June, according to the Bloomberg Economic Evaluation of States. The state had originally projected a surplus of $130 million as of mid-2015.
As we noted in late January, the state's "surging tax revenue" was decidedly not precipitated by tax increases. Governor Scott Walker -- who has cut taxes several times over his first term -- urged passage of an additional tax relief package in his 2014 state of the state address, arguing that the unexpectedly large surplus ought to be "returned to taxpayers because it's their money." Last week, the Republican-held legislature complied with the governor's request, over the strident and eternally predictable objections of tax-and-spend Democrats:
Republicans moved closer to making Gov. Scott Walker's plan to use the state's surplus to cover $504 million in tax cuts reality Tuesday, pushing the measure through the state Senate despite Democrats' complaints the proposal is just a token election-year ploy. The bill now heads to a final vote in the state Assembly. That chamber has already passed the measure but must agree with changes the Legislature's budget committee made to win a key senator's vote...Passage is all but certain. "The hardworking taxpayers of Wisconsin know how to spend their money better than politicians in Madison do," Walker said in a statement ... Walker also introduced another bill that would use about $35 million from the surplus to fund new Department of Workforce Development job training grants, including grants to eliminate technical college waiting lists for high-demand fields, help high school students get job training for high-demand jobs and help the disabled find work. The Assembly passed that bill last week. The Senate followed suit Tuesday, approving it unanimously. That measure now goes to Walker for his signature.
Final passage is expected one week from today. Walker fashioned some of these tax cuts with a populist flair, targeting certain breaks specifically for blue-collar workers. Nevertheless, Democrats have griped that the plan favors the rich and won't benefit the middle class. Facts aside, their script stays the same -- even as they vote en masse for Walker's jobs training bills. Here's what Madison Democrats aren't eager to discuss: Walker inherited a large structural deficit from his Democratic predecessor, who raised taxes massively. When the Republican chief executive led a successful budget reform fight in 2011, the Left issued shrill predictions of fiscal doom and mounted a costly recall effort. They failed on both counts.
Walker's governorship was re-affirmed by a larger margin than his 2010 victory, and the predicted meltdown never played out. In fact, the state now enjoys a large surplus, while local school boards have taken advantage of their new budgetary freedoms to balance the books without laying off teachers. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editors conceded that the "sky isn't falling" in a 2011 editorial, as conservative observers were more generous in their praise. Big Labor was never truly convinced that Walker's reforms wouldn't work. No, the union bosses were petrified that they would work, and that the only resulting "calamity" would be a precipitous drop-off in (now voluntary) union participation. They were certainly right about that. Meanwhile, Walker's 2014 opponent has released her first television ad, which suggests that Wisconsin's unemployment rate has increased on the incumbent's watch. This claim is so wrong that left-leaning fact-checker Politifact had no choice but to rate it "pants on fire" false. Walker's team sets the record straight in an ad of their own:
Here's Walker spelling out the case for his soon-to-be finalized tax cuts. According to a 2013 survey of Wisconsin business owners, 95 percent say they are optimistic about the state's economic trajectory, up from just 10 percent under Governor Doyle. And Mary Burke may not want to "go there" on unemployment. Walker's supporters have noted that the only time in the last 25 years when Wisconsin's unemployment sagged below the national average was when she led the state's Commerce Department.
The age of politicizing everything is here and President Obama's pick for Surgeon General is no different. Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy has been tapped to lead the charge when it comes to promoting public health with the full weight of the federal government behind him. He also has a history of promoting gun control, of slamming the Second Amendment and has publicly called guns a "healthcare issue" and public health threat.
Dr. Vivek Hallegere Murthy is the president and founder of Doctors for America, which grew from the campaign organization that was called Doctors for Obama, started in 2008. The organization has advocated for a number of liberal initiatives, including strongly supporting the passage of Obamacare and Medicaid expansion.
The group has also been supportive of the Obama administration’s failed push for expanding gun control laws in 2013. It successfully fought a proposed Florida law that would have prevented doctors from including in a person’s medical file whether they are a gun owner. Doctors for America has referred to guns as a public health threat, and circulated a petition to pressure Congress to pass stricter gun laws.
Investors Business Daily reported on Murthy’s anti-gun tweets, including, “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue,” during the 2012 presidential elections, and in December 2012 in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre: “NRA press conference disappointing but predictable — blame everything in the world except guns for the Newtown tragedy. #wakeup.”
We've already seen doctors across the country asking patients if they have guns in their homes and recently, we saw President Obama sign new gun control executive orders related to mental health, an area Murthy would cover if confirmed.
The National Rifle Association is strongly opposing the nomination and has urged its five million members to contact their Senators. NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox has also written a letter to Senate leadership opposing the nomination.
The National Rifle Association strongly opposes the confirmation of Vivek Hallegere Murthy, M.D., M.B.A., as United States Surgeon General.
The Surgeon General has the important tasks of providing the American public with information to better inform decisions related to their health and directing much of the federal government's public health efforts. In order for these roles to be carried out effectively, the public must trust that the Surgeon General's actions are based on empirical and scientific evidence, rather than political or ideological motives. In this regard, Dr. Murthy's record of political activism in support of radical gun control measures raises significant concerns about his ability to objectively examine issues pertinent to America's 100 million firearm owners and the likelihood he would use the office of Surgeon General to further his preexisting campaign against gun ownership.
Murthy recently made it through a vote from Senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and will face a full Senate floor vote sometime in the near future. Although Majority Leader Harry Reid has nuked the filibuster and set up Senate rules that nearly guarantee Murthy's confirmation, red state Democrats are going to have a tough time in an election year justifying a confirmation vote for an anti-Second Amendment activist.
A new campaign sponsored by Girl Scouts, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and dozens of female celebrities seeks to ban the term "bossy." The term apparently is used to demean women and girls are not seeking out leadership positions due to a fear of being disliked or being called bossy.
Bossy: adjective. given to ordering people about; overly authoritative; domineering.
The website for "ban bossy" includes this ominous message:
When a little boy asserts himself, he's called a “leader.” Yet when a little girl does the same, she risks being branded “bossy.” Words like bossy send a message: don't raise your hand or speak up. By middle school, girls are less interested in leading than boys—a trend that continues into adulthood. Together we can encourage girls to lead.
Where to begin?
What everyone seems to have missed is that the term "bossy" is not exclusive to females. Plenty of boys and men have been referred to as "bossy" or worse. This victim mentality isn't going to do anything to empower women.
Instead of banning words like "bossy," perhaps a more effective strategy would be to teach girls ways to exhibit leadership without being, well, bossy. "Leadership" isn't a synonym for bossy--but "dictatorial," "overbearing," and "abrasive" are. There's a huge difference between being a leader and being abrasive.
Also, for what it's worth, demanding that a word be banned is quite bossy in and of itself.
Unions do not always get it right, but when they do, they should be commended.
And at least one 300,000-member union, Unite Here, understands exactly what ObamaCare will do to American workers.
The union has released a report showing how dramatically ObamaCare will impact workers' incomes and/or health care. It concludes that not only does ObamaCare prompt businesses to cut workers' hours, it likewise offers incentives for businesses to dump workers into ObamaCare -- thus leaving them with less-generous (but more expensive) health care plans.
Of course, the report represents a double blow to Democrats. Not only does it undermine their efforts to push "income inequality" as their top issue heading into the 2014 elections -- because hey, if you're serious about income inequality, just repeal ObamaCare! -- it also highlights union discontent with ObamaCare (and by extension, with Democrats). And if you're a Democrat -- grown fat and happy on the mother's milk of union money and grassroots work -- that's bad news, indeed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is "very concerned" the GOP is going to take over the Senate in 2014. In a letter to some 800,000 perspective Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee donors, he pleaded with them to fight the Koch brothers or face a brutal defeat.
The opening of the letter reads (no emphasis needed, the Senator did an ample job):
Dear fellow Democrat,
I've got two words for you: Koch brothers.
Need I say more?
If Democrats like you and I don't do everything in our power right now, while time is on our side, come November 4, the Koch brothers will have bought total control of the Senate — and total control of Congress for their handpicked Republicans and Tea Party candidates.
You know as well as I do that would be disastrous for our country, women, minorities, seniors, children, students, the environment, and of course, you and your family.
Mere coincidence no doubt, that "you and your family" come after pretty much everyone and everything else in Reid's list.
During the last week of February Reid even had the audacity to call the American people liars. Stating from that Senate floor that all of the Obamacare horror stories are untrue. The tales are nothing more than adds, paid for by the Koch Brothers, Reid continued.
Luke Hilgemann, Chief Operating officer for Americans for Prosperity, sat down with me at CPAC to explain how AFP spent around $30 million dollars over the last several months.
One thing is certain, Reid is feeling threatened. There are eight months until the November elections, and he is trying desperately to lay blame on someone for the impending loss of his Democratic majority.
I'd be less than frank if I said that I thought we had nothing to worry about...that America is ready to hold the GOP accountable and send them packing. But honestly, I'm concerned—very concerned because I know full well what they are trying to do.
If you’ve seen HBO’s award-winning miniseries “Band of Brothers,” William “Wild Bill” Guarnere needs no introduction from me. His heroism and intrepidity in battle are self-evident to those who’ve seen it. However, for those unfamiliar with the show, it’s important -- especially for younger generations -- to know who he was.
He was a soldier in “Easy Company,” a legendary outfit in the 101st Airborne Division in the United States Army during the Second World War. In other words, he was a paratrooper. And he parachuted into Normandy on D-Day with his company, serving on the frontlines until his war service was suddenly cut short when he was grievously wounded at the Battle of the Bulge. He was highly decorated.
Fox News has more:
William "Wild Bill" Guarnere, one of the World War II veterans whose exploits were dramatized in the TV miniseries "Band of Brothers," has died. He was 90.
His son, William Guarnere Jr., confirmed Sunday that his father died at Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Guarnere was rushed to the hospital early Saturday and died of a ruptured aneurysm early Saturday night.
The younger Guarnere told FoxNews.com that like so many of his generation, "Wild Bill" didn't talk about his service, even though he lost his leg in combat.
"All we knew was he lost his leg, and that was it," William Guarnere Jr. said. "People knew more about (his service) than we did."
The New York Times calls this Obamacare provision a "little known" fact. Indeed:
In a little-noticed outcome of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, jails and prisons around the country are beginning to sign up inmates for health insurance under the law, taking advantage of the expansion of Medicaid that allows states to extend coverage to single and childless adults — a major part of the prison population. State and counties are enrolling inmates for two main reasons. Although Medicaid does not cover standard health care for inmates, it can pay for their hospital stays beyond 24 hours — meaning states can transfer millions of dollars of obligations to the federal government.
But the most important benefit of the program, corrections officials say, is that inmates who are enrolled in Medicaid while in jail or prison can have coverage after they get out. People coming out of jail or prison have disproportionately high rates of chronic diseases, especially mental illness and addictive disorders. Few, however, have insurance, and many would qualify for Medicaid under the income test for the program — 138 percent of the poverty line — in the 25 states that have elected to expand their programs. Health care experts estimate that up to 35 percent of those newly eligible for Medicaid under Mr. Obama’s health care law are people with histories of criminal justice system involvement...
The Times quotes conservative health policy expert Avik Roy discussing the public relations problem this may raise: “There can be little doubt that it would be controversial if it was widely understood that a substantial proportion of the Medicaid expansion that taxpayers are funding would be directed toward convicted criminals,” he said. The piece notes that many critics of the "Affordable" Care Act contend that its massive expansion of Medicaid only taxes an already-overburdened program, and that shifting state-level obligations for prisoner care will negatively impact the federal budget. Medicaid is, in fact, a broken system. It does not reduce uncompensated care at emergency rooms (which is often used as an non-factual selling point of the expansion), and its beneficiaries do not experience better health outcomes than their uninsured counterparts. Defenders of this 'care for convicts' program will no doubt argue that it is a humane endeavor that helps reduce criminal recidivism. Here's one such claim from the story:
“For those newly covered, it will open up treatment doors for them” and potentially save money in the long run by reducing recidivism, said Dr. Fred Osher, director of health systems and services policy for the Council of State Governments Justice Center. He added that a 2009 study in Washington State found that low-income adults who received treatment for addiction had significantly fewer arrests than those who were untreated.
I would like to see additional scholarship on this question. The promise of "potentially" saving money "in the long run" sounds nebulous and aspirational (like many liberal policies), not empirical. Taxpayers already foot the bill for inmates' medical treatment behind bars, but the Medicaid gambit permanently extends many convicts' taxpayer-funded care beyond the duration of their sentences. The Times story describes the city of Chicago's new standing policy to automatically enroll inmates as part of the post-arrest intake process. Roy suspects -- rightly, I think -- that this won't sit well with many Americans. Obamacare will reduce incomes for a large majority of American wage-earners, raise costs for two-thirds of small businesses, and is badly failing to attract the uninsured. It will come as cold comfort to law-abiding taxpayers that their rising healthcare costs are being used to subsidize care for criminals.
In an effort to recruit and inspire Western jihadis to carry out attacks in their own countries, Al Qaeda is planning to launch a new magazine in English called Resurgence.
An announcement with the name of the new magazine was posted on YouTube, but that video has since been removed as it violated YouTube’s policy on violence. Imagine that.
NBC News has more details:
If the magazine is launched, it will mark the first English-language publication from the central branch of the terror group. Al Qaeda’s media wing, as-Sahab, which released the 80 second video on the internet this weekend, has for years released messages from senior leaders of the terror group like Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The brief video appears to combine audio from a 1965 Malcolm X speech justifying violence — including the quote “talk the language that they understand” – with images of U.S. soldiers, Islamic militants, a purported attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan and the Boston Marathon bombings.
The announcement comes as al Qaeda central has been devastated by drone strikes in western Pakistan over the past several years and the U.S. commando raid that killed the group’s founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, and suggests that the main branch of the organization is trying to reestablish its waning influence over Islamic militants.
Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism analyst for NBC, said the video appeared to be modelled after Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s online publication, Inspire.
“The announcement appears to be a tacit acknowledgement of the success of Inspire,” Kohlmann said in the NBC report.
“Clearly, al Qaeda's central leadership is seeking to try and recruit Americans from within U.S. borders, including indirectly if necessary — the homegrown terrorism model,” he added.
“Its simplicity appeals in many ways,” Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at Swedish National Defence College, told The Telegraph. “It focuses on the raw emotions of victimhood in the Muslim world which reinforces the al-Qaeda narrative that the West is aggressively at war with Islam.”
It has now been almost 1 year and 3 months since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Now the shooter’s father is finally speaking out about his son. In an interview with The New Yorker, Peter Lanza, the father of Adam Lanza, is giving Americans a different look into the killers’ life.
Now speaking out, Peter said that he now wishes his son was never born,
“That didn’t come right away. That’s not a natural thing, when you’re thinking about your kid. But, God, there’s no question.”
Mr. Lanza has met with two victims’ families, one of which told him they forgave Adam. Peter couldn’t believe their kindness. And when asked if they had a funeral for Adam, Peter said that is something that no one knows and no one ever will.
Apparently Adam’s plan was to enlist in the military when he turned 18, but that didn’t happen. His father told The New Yorker, that Adam was “just a normal little weird kid.” The father of the murderer told the media outlet that he believes that Adam would have killed him too, had he been given the opportunity. Mr. Lanza even went as far to say that Adam shot his mother four times, giving one bullet to each member of the family.
Clearly this is a sad story that will continue to haunt us. With more information now coming out about the shooter, perhaps proper legislation can be passed in order to prevent this type of thing from happening again.
Hey, Harry Reid, is this Baptist Preacher a Liar, too? Pastor Hit by Truck Another ObamaCare Victim | Todd Starnes