I have been on the net frequently today. So, tomorrow then. Net neutrality means not having to be on the net at any particular time, day or year. It means never having a scheduled time to enjoy freedom. It means being happy, free and connected to all that matters, including people most cared about.

American politics is basically very simple. Simple by the simpleton politics of the Republicans primarily, in whatever vernacular they occur.

The Democrats from the day of FDR have sought to bring equality to people. They took on representation of those on the edges of the majority law. The historical purview of Democrats have always been the unions, the Poor, the minorities and basically all those left on the fringe of society that have not been successful under majority governance, culture and society.

The Republicans primarily from the years of FDR look for 'the wedge' to divide the majority of voters. In other words, Unions take money to build a strong support to carry out negotiations and the like. Therefore, unions are bad because they raise wages costing companies the jobs of rightful Americans. Nowhere in the history of unions has it ever been shown they were detrimental to companies. Quite the contrary the companies with unionized workers have done quite well. The union representation brought more circulating capital to the country and the companies grew and profited. ONLY when CEOs started to receive bonuses linked to profits did companies begin to deteriorate. The labor went outside the USA and the circulating capital fell. Then when people were desperate for jobs, they would believe anything just so they could bring home subsistence monies to support their families.

The Republicans became the opposition party. They represented the wealthy and companies. Their focus was to breakdown any financial ties to their supports, which is taxes, and oppose the work of Democrats when they are/were in majority. That is basically it. The 2008 global economic collapse was because Republican corruption to gain control of money rather than serving the country as a whole. 

But, that is it basically. The scientists who bring bad news about the lack of regulation can't be Republicans because they cost companies money to meet regulations, etc. 

Pretty simple stuff. What the Democrats of 2009-10 didn't expect is a very corrupt Supreme Court put in place with Bush. I never thought I'd see the day when Republicans would stoop so low they would actually allow the death of citizens to satisfy their crony interests. The ACA was suppose to protect everyone, serve everyone and give everyone a fighting chance in life. To that is included the American Dream which is suppose to be a birthright. The American Dream is denied citizens because mostly of medical bills that simply can't be paid for many reasons. Some of those reasons included companies denying benefits to their members. It is why the ACA became a focus and a dire need of the people of the country. It wasn't just the uninsured, it was ANYONE. The companies have been getting away with killing Americans for profit.

"Sicko" is a convenient source of reality and truth." It is a fact. If Michael Moore hadn't been the humanitarian he was raised to be by his parents, family and neighborhood, the greater moral society, there is doubt the American people would ever find the ability to rise up and take such issues to task. 

So, the American political system is divided into those that have a conscience and those that have bank accounts.

I might add this. Chief Justice Berger was as much a reason to be moral and have a conscience. He focused on the INDIVIDUAL in the USA living under it's laws. He validated 'the extremes' the Democrats adhered to in their politics. Chief Justice Berger and his court added freedom to Americans and their experience within their country. His court added dignity to all Americans facing adversity because of their country and it's laws. 

The idea that Michael Moore is an icon is correct, however, to say he ran a revolution based in nothing as known before is incorrect. The Berger Court and it's ruling came long before Moore ever held a camera in his hands. There is every reason of sound judicial views that have given permission for the topics in Moore's compositions. 

One other point to make is WHY some states didn't institute the law, ACA. Did it have to do with the fact the states were funding for the first two to three years by 100% and then the funding would reduce to 80% of federal dollars therefore adding to the burden of the state's budget?

No.

That is a convenient excuse. Why the states didn't implement the ACA is because the TAXES become an issue of re-election. 

A couple of things.

The signed pledge to Grover Norquist.

And the most egregious aspect of the states lack of implementation is that the businesses or industries taxed are now cronies to their politics.

So people like Republican Rick Perry or Rick Scott can now call on those being taxed to contribute to their campaigns to end the tax. 

People have died in the states that have refused the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These are human rights abuses institutional now through the Robert's Court. Supposedly the US Constitution allows human rights, too.

I never thought anything of the sort about my country's constitution. The problem with the ruling that the states do not have to participate IN A FEDERAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM, well funded by taxes; is that the Robert's Court acts in political methodology to favor the Republican agenda. It is not my country's constitution that permits such a thing. 

How do I know?

In the reading of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, constitutional scholars and parliamentarians within the USA government were asked to provide any disputes regarding the law before it was voted on and implemented. All those that sought the constitutionality of the law stated it was sound. It is ONLY when it entered the purview of the Robert's Court did any of it become unconstitutional. Hence, insuring funding for Republican politics that would willingly take up the fight to rid any company of tax.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is NOT funded by China.

The ACA (Affordable Care Act) doesn't contribute to the national debt.

...Some (click here) of the commentary on those reports has suggested that CBO and JCT have changed their estimates of the effects of the ACA to a significant degree. That’s not our perspective....

To validate the fact the ACA is not a burden to the country's national debt is the line that states "employer sponsored insurance" (ESI). In this particular instance the ESI 2012. It had a dip initially as some companies opted to let their employees find coverage in the exchanges, but, that leveled out nearly returning to pre-implementation of the ACA. So, the 'idea' the country is burdened with health care for the majority of the country is nonsense.

Noteworthy to the purpose of the ACA is the significant drop in the uninsured. It is expected to grow throughout the time period on the graph, but, it basically strikes a maximum drop in the uninsured by 2016 and then leveling off. So, the uninsured in the USA will find it's maximum participation in 2016, for the most part. The upper lines of the graph over 0 (zero) is where the uninsured went to find coverage. That also levels off after the initial years.

These were points made during the legislative process of 2009-2010. The law when proposed and voted on already had projections made in it. This is nothing new. These findings by the CBO and others only validate what was already known. I know this was in the law as projections for the reason of the necessity because I read it. So much for lack of transparency. There was absolute transparency and this blog proves it. One of the reasons I engaged the reading of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was because the right wing media were promulgating lies. If I simply disputed the lies it was simply "He said, She said." By reading the actual document and recording it here I proved what the document already said. The right wing was unable to continue their lies about the health care document. Their fear mongering still hasn't stopped with "Pulling the plug on Grandma." Nonsense.

This graph simply shows the implementation of the law in 2013. Right? It shows how much of the federal budget is being spent by the ACA enactment. HOWEVER, that does not reflect a deficit for the bill that adds to the national debt. I know it sounds confusing, but, there were taxes collected IN ADVANCE of the implementation that would fund it. So, while the budget looks sort of terrible, it is simply an indication it began to be implemented and these were the funds being spent.

This is the graph that proves the lack of impact on the national debt. When the process began there weren't any funds to support the effort in 2010. It was the beginning of the taxation that would later pay for the ACA. So, there is a slight bump over the 0 (zero) line for 2010.

The ACA effects the national debt when it moves above the 0 (zero) line. 

By 2011 the taxes to support the implementation of the ACA were beginning to be realized. The solid black line dips below 0 (zero) indicating the accumulation of funds in the nation's treasury (USA Treasury). There are two lines on the graph each indicating a different time period of assessment. The black line indicates the estimate of the March 2010 estimate. There was no other model to draw on for estimates into the future so the calculations were made based on perceived need and estimated costs for coverage. Pretty straight forward stuff.

The gray line of the graph is from February 2012. There was more accurate data coming in to find a closer match to the actual impact of the ACA. That data was now coming from insurance companies preparing for the implementation. AGAIN, while these companies were more accurate they also did not have a model the size of the USA to rely on. 

What is fascinating about this addition of the February 2012 data is the long term projections were actually seeing less and less impact of the ACA over time. The downward trajectory in February 2012 is far greater than the estimate of the CBO in March of 2010 after the law was first passed.

What does that mean? It means the income in taxes to support the ACA is going to outrun it's expenses therefore contributing to the payment of the national debt. The longer the taxes are collected on the basis of the current ACA law the more the national debt is reduced.

Some of this occurs because not all the states have participated although their citizens have on the national website. The other part of this is SUPPLY and DEMAND. The ACA increases demand for healthcare services. When there is a larger demand the supply side of healthcare has to meet the demand. I fully expect the first two years of the ACA to have exceptionally high demand to the healthcare infrastructure with very good profits for the industry in general. But, as the uninsured are getting health care, they are also becoming well. In a very short time; I would say after 2016, the beginning of 2017, there will probably be a leveling off of demand so the supply side can then compensate and become predictable in the need for infrastructure. By infrastructure I mean the GOODS such as medications, devices, but, also services requiring trained personnel such as doctors, surgeons, nurses and the technical help of nursing assistants, medical technicians and lab personnel. That is the health care infrastructure. 

So, come the first quarter, maybe the second there should be a KNOWN to the estimate of the size of the population being served by the health care industry. It will provide a much clearer picture of the expected cost of the law going forward and THEN any over taxation by the law can be reduced. I don't see anyone rushing to reduce the taxation based on ESTIMATES conducted today. The estimates have proven to be fluctuating and if there is an under estimation it could be adverse to the law. 

The other possibility is to actually leave the taxation in place to assist in paying down the national debt. There is nothing written in stone that the taxes collected at any level of the ACA has to only go toward healthcare. The country needs to look at the entire picture as it unfolds in late 2016 and decide where the money has helped the USA Treasury and whether it needs to continue. 

But, anyone making wild statements such Bobby Jindal from Louisiana about the loans from the Chinese paying for the ACA is a blatant lie. So, here we are with Jindal playing Liar's Poker with the health of the country.

The Republicans and Putin share a common goal.

Brinkmanship and once satiated the goal posts move to facilitate an even different brinkmanship. This could on forever. It is time the people of the USA recognize brinkmanship as a weakness to their democracy that continues to lead it to a cliff of no return.

A presidency is suppose to mean something and not oppressed by political rhetoric. When President Obama acts it is in support of a better America, not just a better Democratic Party.

Enough of this Republican game of oppression masquerading as constitutionality!

It is hideous to have a Republican Party stating they are the party of the family only to have them destroy the families the USA has built.

It seems every federal legislator hasn't grown up enough to have a backbone and do the right thing. Well, then there is a President that has.

OMG it's amnesty!

Your damn right it is. Well earned amnesty!

The undocumented worker needs to recognized and incorporated into our countries populous.

I think the President has a free hand in writing an executive order regarding immigration.

These are a particular population of people that have made it as far as the USA to find work. They have come to work because even the minimalist of pay was more than they could find in Mexico. Their lives certainly would have been threatened by starvation and/or drug cartel oppression and death. 

In my opinion, the undocumented workers need to have a vehicle allowed for the next two years of the executive order to facilitate their aspirations to a Green Card and permanent citizenship.

There are methods to bring people to the USA by employers. This is exactly that same law but, without prior engagement of the immigration system. It is not the fault of the worker they have found a method to make a living or the fault of the employer to find employees. They have found each other in a relationship not fulfilled by any other method.

It is up to the federal government to act to include these individuals in our population in a way that will promote their permanent status and protection of the families, especially including their children who know no other life and have been educated by our dollars. These children are part of the country and when their parents achieve a vehicle to permanency, then they are incorporated with the complete family.

Undocumented workers need to be sponsored by their employers without penalty to them or their employers and their families listed with the worker seeking permanent status. 

This is a ridiculous situation that promotes challenges and expense to public health and our labor forces by excluding people that work and pay taxes. These people need their legal identities restored so they are not hiding behind faux faces and identities that could result in criminal activity.

There are many reasons for this population to be made permanent citizens that include health, our brain trust, our investment and ending crime. It has taken too long to achieve their inclusiveness and the President has an obligation to legitimize this section of our labor force.

There is too much incentive for people crossing the border to be involved in criminal activity as there is a wall to their success in becoming citizens. How is Mexico going to end it's drug cartel rule when there is strong incentive to continue the drug economy which results in criminality in the USA facilitated by those desperate to find safety.

The President needs to include statistics regarding the desperation of people to simply live in the reasons they come to the USA. The burden of the USA to refuse them status is overwhelming and the path forward is to allow citizenship. It is ridiculous otherwise. These are not simply people that will add to the political roles on one side or the other, these are aggrieved populations seeking well being.

Muslim on Muslim crime.

LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister David Cameron (click here) has condemned the Islamic State group as a "depraved organization" after the extremists released a video claiming to show that militants have beheaded U.S. aid worker Peter Kassig....

By his own choice Mr. Kassig was Muslim with a very different name. I think that should be respected.

His name was Abdul-Rahman Kassig. I make this statement to understand the Islamic State is a brutal regime that kills members of the Muslim faith without regret. It's doesn't matter Sunni or Shi'ite or Sunni Kurd, they become victims at the please of the Islamic States.

Aid workers need to identify better and safer routes to the citizens of Syria that still remain within it's borders. I suggest the ports are possibly a safer way to deliver goods to workers. The passage through Syria is not safe.

There may be some safe routes elsewhere and I would encourage surrounding countries to assist in finding those safe routes. Finding safe routes for aid workers will reduce the numbers of people seeking refugee status. The surrounding countries are correct to limit refugees because of the danger of infiltration of the Islamic State. Although, I am sure there are members of this hideous regime that 'want out' at any cost, they are still oddly among those that have been devout in their religious affiliations.

I would suggest for members of the Islamic State that want to leave, become witnesses to the World Court and surrender with information to the structure of the regime and how oppression is delivered as well as how victims come to their justice system. Beheadings, hangings, crucifixions, stonings are all methods of justice outlined in religious texts. They are primitive and need no infrastructure and are instructional to the outcomes of those who do not practice ultraconservative Islam.

"And with Allah's permission ... the Islamic State will soon ... begin to slaughter your people in your streets."

They are already slaughtering people in the streets. Are the people dying under this regime not people? What are they then? Objects. I've heard of S and M, but, this takes it to an entirely illegal and immoral level.

The format of the video was different from previous such announcements, not only because it showed other beheadings but also because these were shown in graphic detail. The purported location was also disclosed, the northern Syrian town of Dabeq.

This is the exact same justice system as practiced by the Taliban. It is pulled out of the texts of religion and applied to the 21st century populous.

The ability of these regimes, be it the Islamic State or Taliban, to simply find guns and begin their own society by using religious text as it's governance is incredible in this day and age. This is prehistoric rituals pulled from ancient religion. The 'idea' this brutality and LIFESTYLE is handed down by Mohammad is hideous and completely out of step with 21st century reality. How does it happen these tribal people become victim to these maniacal regimes that appear out of nowhere. Do these madmen wake up one morning and decide "If I am going to prison or worse for killing people, then everyone else will, too." This is complete craziness to have these people armed and able to overrun any ounce of civilized society.

There are segments of American society that cling to the past, but, they aren't so desperate they kill others and seek to rule the entire country.

The leaders of the regimes are primarily war criminals and should be treated as such.

"Here we are burying the first American crusader in Dabeq. Eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive," he says.

This is the impetus to the kidnappings and killings. The West goes right along with it and becomes involved in quagmire after quagmire. The Crusades weren't enough for them?

The point is the 'type' of regime is seen not uniquely in Syria, but, also in Pakistan and Afghanistan and who knows how many more places, like Nigeria. And in the case of Nigeria there is an economic reason it sprouted in the first place.

These regimes are taking example from past horrific regimes as Rwanda and realizing they are successful once the oppression of the people is achieved. Time after time this same method of regime occurs around the world. When is the religious antics of these regimes going to be recognized and disarmed of their validity according to religious texts?

There needs to begin a hearing in absentia of all these regime members to bring them to a common understanding they are going to prison and most likely executed. The World Court needs to begin the trials and then as they are captured, if they are captured instead of killed, their sentences carried out.

These regimes are known, their methodologies inhumane and premeditated. In order to carry out reproductive genocide there is a plan to do it. They are selective in their methodologies. 

There is also the issue of child soldiers. We know for a fact from their own "You Tube" releases they begin the incorporation of children into the regime as soon as they can begin to learn. That reality is brutally imposed on children without regret. Even fathers don't care about the longevity of their sons. The sons are to die for Allah in hideous approaches to war. The men simply have the women producing their 'get.' There is no love between father and son. I doubt there is love between a man and their women. The relationships within this regime is about producing soldiers.

Racism needs to be pulled out by the root and branch.

The day after (click here) Barack Obama won a second term as president of the United States, the blog Jezebel published a slideshow. The gallery displayed a collection of screen-capped tweets. Among them was this: