Monthly Archives: February 2013

Mrs. Obama went on ABC Good Morning America, and had this to say about Hadiya Pendleton, the young woman who sang at the inauguration then was tragically shot in Chicago, “She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids…grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test, and she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need [emphasis added].” It comes as no surprise to me that Mrs. Obama would try to politicize the death of this young lady. She is trying to exploit the death of this young woman to achieve a ban on semi-automatic rifles.  It also comes as no surprise that much like her husband, she will make claims that fly completely in the face of the facts. However, according to the Associated Press the authorities that the shooter used a semi-automatic pistol to shoot the young lady six times before fleeing the scene.

According to the Washington Examiner “It is extremely unlikely that the murder weapon was an automatic handgun, an extremely rare occurrence, even in the streets of Chicago. An overwhelming majority of handguns bought and sold in America are semi-automatic.”  So again the concept of scary looking semi automatic rifles not being the favored weapon of criminals rears its ugly head, darn those facts. 

This little gaff in and of itself is not a damnable offense, it is possible that Mrs. Obama just misspoke, your on TV, not familiar with firearms, and you misspeak its not that big of a deal. I have no issue with what the First Lady said, other than it was not based within the realm of the truth.  Apparently ABC saw this as being an issue too, because while they left the gaff on their website, but they edited the comment out of the show when it aired? 

Here is the edited video

So why did ABC not show the First Lady saying that this girl was killed by automatic weapons, in a city with some of the strictest gun control measures in the world? I can’t help but feeling that if this had been say…. Laura Bush the clip would not have been edited, and the first lady would have been thrown to the wolves.  

So I am going to talk about something completely outside of the ordinary. For this blog anyways. As some of my readers may or may not know I am a huge car guy. Automobiles have captured my imagination like nothing else ever has. I love to work on, tinker with, and build up old cars.  I have an 86 Ford Ranger that I re-built in high school, a 78 Trans-am that me and my grandfather use to go get ice cream in on the weekends, and my most recent acquisition a 95 Ford Bronco.  It is the Ford Bronco that I intend to talk to you about today.

I am like to go hunting, I like to go camping, I like to go skiing, and I am a Scout Master, all of these things are greatly added by having a four wheel drive vehicle.  Due to my being a Scout Master I often have to tow a trailer filled with the boy’s gear.  This necessitates having a truck.  Then there is the fact that I am not only poor, but also rather cheap, which means that I have an old truck.  Anyone who drives an old 4×4 truck knows that 4×4 truck and fuel economy do not go hand in hand.  The old War Wagon, as my mother dubbed it, is not horrible on gas, by truck standards, but it leaves a lot to be desired. When I bought the truck it would do about 12-13 mpg city, and the best I ever pulled down was 15 freeway, but I averaged about 14.  So not great, but then again for an old truck that’s not too bad.

Then there was the issue of performance.  I really wished when I was shopping for the truck I had done my research a little better, I was a little naïve about the engine offerings in the Bronco.  I had driven a 351 truck, and loved the power, but the mileage was terrible.  Then I drove a newer 302 powered truck, and while it was a little down on power it got a lot better mileage. I figured it was due to the engine being smaller.  What I didn’t know was because the 302 truck was equipped with an overdrive transmission. People with the 351 see similar real world mileage as I do.  

The truck I bought is a very nice truck, it is an XLT, has every bell and whistle on it. It had hardly any rust, and only 80,000 miles.  It was a heck of a deal.  Shortly after purchasing the truck I quickly began to realize that I need more power. I didn’t want more power I needed more, that’s my story and I am sticking to it.  I also set out to see what I could do to get better mileage.  I set out to achieve the impossible, I wanted to have my cake and eat it too.  How hard could it be?

So I started my research and found an article called Project Mile per Gallon. Basically in this article they took a 460 powered Bronco Centurion (an extended cab F-350 converted to be like a bronco, basically it was the original excursion), and took it from getting 4 mpg city, and 8 mpg freeway to getting 8 mpg city and over 13 mpg freeway.  Not to mention it had over 600 foot pounds of torque. This was all achieved through simple bolt on modifications, this greatly intrigued me.  So with Project MPG as my guide I started Operation MPG.  I did not want to just re-create what they did in Project MPG, I wanted to take it a step further, see just how far I could take it.

Well very early on I found out that the world of trucks is filled with just as much bitter politics as the world that we constantly engage in.  When I asked about tips and tricks for better fuel economy, I was told it was impossible.  When I asked for how to build more power out of a 302, I was told that the short stroke of the 302 made it impossible to be a proper truck motor. If I wanted more power I should just swap in a 351 and be done with it.  Well if you know me at all I do not do “it is impossible” or “can’t be done”. It can always be done.  So I set out to rewrite the paradigm of the truck world.

So why is it that the 302 Ford is written off as a truck motor?  Basically the answer is because it is a short stroke motor. What this means is that it likes to rev, which is a trait associated with top end horsepower, something sought after and prized by many hot rodders. However most hot rods are light weight vehicles, a heavy truck needs low end torque.  A long stroke motor has several advantages at low RPM operation over a short stroke motor.   The longer stroke means that the motor can draw more air in on the intake stroke, it applies the force of the combustion to the crankshaft for a longer period of time, it can push more of the spent exhaust gasses out on the exhaust stroke.   These advantages disappear in the higher rpm range, where the length of the stroke becomes a hindrance.   So does this mean that it is impossible for a 302 to build power down low?  I do not believe that to be the case.  The motor in my truck has 302 cubic inches, 5.0 liters of displacement to work with.   This is nothing to laugh at, newer heavier vehicles are making due with smaller motors, making more power, and getting far better fuel economy. The answer comes down to maximum efficiency. 

I know there are those out there who believe that it is impossible to increase the power of a car, and increase the fuel economy as well.  Everyone knows the high output motors are gas hogs. That is simply not necessarily true. It depends on how it is that you build that power.  Fuel economy and power are directly tied to volumetric efficiency of a motor.  The power of an engine is generated when gas, air, and a spark meet up and cause an explosion in the combustion chamber.  This explosion sends the piston down the cylinder, which spins the crankshaft, which turns the fly wheel, which turns the transmission, which turns the drive shaft which spins the differential, which spins the axles, which spins the wheels.  The bigger the boom, the more power you have.  How you get this bigger boom determines if your quest for horsepower is met by fuel economy gains, as well as power gains.  One way to build more power is to make the engine bigger. More gasoline can equal a bigger boom. This is the easiest and cheapest way to build power.  The other way to build power is to improve the volumetric efficiency of an engine. When the combustion takes place, not all of the fuel in the chamber is burnt, a lot of this unburnt fuel flows out the exhaust valve and is lost to the ages.   By maximizing the volumetric efficiency of an engine, you burn more of the gas in the combustion chamber, and less gas is required to achieve the same amount of power.  

The more complete the burn, the more power that is achieved for each combustion cycle.  So how does one go about improving the volumetric efficiency of an engine? An engine is an air pump, the more efficiently it moves air through the system, the more efficiently it makes power. So when you start building power, the most logical place to start is by improving the engines breathing.  This is critical for a 302 as its short stroke accents the flaws in its intake and exhaust system at low RPMS. So I set off to improve the breathing of my 302.

I started with exhaust and studied how the venture effect, and exhaust velocity could actually help evacuate more of the spent exhaust gasses from the combustion chamber. This effect is called scavenging.  Basically with a poorly designed exhaust system can result in up to 9% of the spent exhaust gases to get caught in the combustion chamber. These gases further dilute the incoming intake charge, basically wasting 18% of your combustion chamber. Not good when you are trying to scrape every last ounce of power out of an engine.  There is a very short period of time for the exhaust gasses to escape the combustion chamber.  That exhaust valve opens, and the piston pushes the gasses out.  In most stock set ups, the piston alone is what expels the spent gasses from the chamber.  However, by creating an area of low pressure in the exhaust system, when that exhaust valve opens, the high pressure gasses in the combustion chamber rush to fill the area of low pressure. This effect further aids the volumetric efficiency thanks to a period called overlap. During the overlap period both the intake and exhaust valves are open. So by having an area of low pressure in the exhaust system it is possible for the exhaust to actually aid in pulling in the new intake charge. 

Armed with this information, as well as information about the evils of back pressure, and the importance of exhaust velocity, I designed an exhaust system that actually helped improve my low end torque, fuel economy, and of course makes my truck sound like the god of Hell Fire.  The exhaust system goes from two 2 ¼ inch pipe, into a y pipe/catalytic converter, then into a 2 ½ inch pipe, into a flow master muffler, then into two 2.5 inch pipes.  These steps help to counter act the decrease in exhaust slug velocity as it cools, by creating areas of low pressure pulling the high pressure gasses towards the exhaust tip. Let me tell you what, this set up, despite what everyone told me, dual exhaust set ups lose low end torque, you won’t see any gains in fuel economy, just run a single three inch pipe you’ll be better off,  has transformed the performance of this truck. It picks up off the line much quicker, and it feels stronger through the power band. The throttle response is greatly improved.  The best part is that I now average about a half a mile per gallon better city, and over a mile per gallon better on the freeway.  More power, more fuel economy, better driving experience, I am in love.

The other aspect of improving the air flow through an engine comes from improving the air intake system. The intake manifold is not a choke point for the 302, the truck intake is seen by most to be a work of art when it comes to an intake manifold designed to make low end torque.  However, that does not mean that there are no improvements to be made in the intake system.  Basically the factory air intake system, the tubing that brings the air to the intake manifold, is one part that can easily be improved. 

I am sure that you all have heard of cold air intake systems, they are often times the first thing that teenager supping up their mom’s civic, tend to buy.  But are they worth it, are there any real power gains to be had?  Well an engine is an air pump, the more air you get into the engine the better the combustion. Cold air is denser as such it has more oxygen per volume. So the cooler the intake charge, the more power the engine will make, to the tune of for every ten degrees you cool the intake charge, you gain 1% in horsepower. So while the big cone filters of some of these aftermarket intakes, might flow more air, but because they draw hot air from the engine bay into the system they do not provide great low end power improvements.  Project MPG put a drop in K&N air filter in the stock air box ,and insulated the intake.  They saw great gains from this. 

This is what I wanted to vent about today, I have been looking for ways to improve air flow into the engine.  I will be insulating the air intake. I have a new tube to relocate where the intake system draws cold air in from outside the engine bay.  But there has to be more power hidden in that intake system.  I am trying to find ways to increase intake velocity. The faster the intake charge can get into the engine, the more oxygen that can get into the combustion chamber.   So this involves me trying to find ways to reduce reversion in the intake tube, turbulence that slows down intake charge. This means smoothing out the intake tube. 

What I want to try to find is a way to create an area of low pressure behind the air filter, to help draw air through the biggest restriction in the intake system, the air filter. 

I am trying to study the effects of Helmholtz resonator:


And how these things affect low end torque.

The problem is that it is 100% impossible to research cold air intakes because the first 50000000000 responses are always just “come here to buy this intake, because it is better than yours, trust us”. 

It drives me nuts, I try to search for the whys of cold air intakes and all I get is cold air intake bring in cold air.  Some kindergarten explanation of what it is, and then a million ads to buy a big open element hot air intake.

Sooo, yeah, if you guys have any information on this topic, I would greatly appreciate it.  Am I the only one who had these issues with search engines?

I have been trying to remind people that the government is not above us. The government is not our master. We do not live in the old world, a world where the few ruled the many. We live in a world were every man is a king, every woman a queen.  Every person is the master of their own destiny. In our country, the land of the free, the government is a servant of the people. This nation was not created by a tyrant, but we the people created our government.  As such, WE give the government its rights, this means that the government is subject to the same laws and regulations that we the people are.  The radical progressives would have you believe that the government is all powerful, that our rights are not rights but privileges that can be taken away. They want you to believe that you are so incompetent, so weak minded, so helpless that you cannot survive without a massive progressive government there to remind your hear to beat, and you to breath.

As we all know the second amendment is the favorite punching bag of the progressive left. They need to set a precedent that our rights are nothing more than privileges that can be taken away. That the government is like a parent, we are like children, and our rights are our favorite toy. If we miss behave our parents are going to take our toys from us. So when you are trying to change the paradigm of a nation, how do you start? How do you convince a nation of kings that they are nothing more than paupers? You have to do it slowly, like boiling a frog. If you heat the water up too quickly the frog realizes the change and jumps out. But if you heat the water up slowly, the frog remains unaware of the change, remains oblivious to the danger, and boils alive.  The progressives are trying to boil us slowly.  So I ask again, how do you go about convincing people to give up their God given freedoms? You could sweep in and take them all through blunt force, but often this results in rebellion and resistance. You have to do it slowly.  A tactic used successfully by the progressives in the past. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini all champions of promising people the world, while slowly stripping it away.  You have to set a precedent, you have to show them that you can take their rights. You have to find an easy target, one that through the manipulation of the base of their humanity you can convince them to give up. 

So do you go after the freedom of speech, it leads to bullying, hurt feelings, the incitation of riots. The freedom of speech allows for political dissidents to challenge your narrative. If it had not been for the freedom of speech perhaps Jimmy Carter would have won re-election, and there would not have been the massive reversal of the radical progressive agenda represented by the Reagan and first Bush years. If it weren’t for the freedom of speech perhaps the TEA Party would not have stopped the Radical Agenda of President Barack Obama.  But the freedom of speech is seen as a key to our humanity. The ability to express ourselves is what makes us unique, makes us human. The progressives have gained a foot hold in this nation by claiming that their opponents want to sensor that humanity. So while getting rid of the freedom of speech would make the implementation of the radical progressive agenda much easier, it would also alert the nation to the trap that they are setting.

The right to assemble? So many of these protests, these gatherings devolve into riots. They cause unrest, lead to some of the darkest days in our history. The riots following the Rodney King case come to mind. The destruction of public property that stemmed from the occupy wall street movement. The cost of these riots stress an already stressed treasury. Doing away with mass protests, being able to limit who, where, and when you are allowed to meet up with people would also limit the ability of information to spread from person to person.  But such a limitation would be easily exposed for what it is, a power grab from a government bent on total control.

Freedom of Religion? Look at the horrors that religion has brought to this world.  The 911 attacks, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts, wiping out of entire peoples. How many people have gone on killing sprees because they thought God was talking to them? How many people have killed their children to save them from the fires of hell? Think about the mass killings caused by cult leaders. All of these could be avoided if the government could just control your religious beliefs.  It would make the job of the progressive movement so much easier.  If there was no God, if the people had no religious beliefs, if there was no higher power then they would have no loyalty to any power above that of the government. More importantly, if there was no religion, if there was no God, than the God Given rights that those baby hating conservatives keep badgering on about, are not gifts from God. They are not inalienable. Without God, our rights become gifts from the government. If our rights are nothing more than words written down on parchment, that means that they can be destroyed, that government can take them away.  However attacking religion is a hard path to go down. While religion has been used by mad men to achieve horrible goals, it has also done great things for this world. It has saved lost souls, people on destructive paths have be reborn. The poor helped, by good people doing their duty to God. So a direct assault on religion is out, but they are working on it.

Perhaps the right to a trial by a jury of ones own peers? How many times have juries gotten it wrong? How many times have the basic weakness of the human heart been tricked into letting the worse of offenders free? OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, all freed despite the evidence by weak minded people. How much easier would it be if the government could just send people to prison. You break a crime, the police catch you, and you go to jail. That wouldn’t work, people fear a police state.

Oh I know, lets do away with the right for protection from cruel and unusual punishment? How much easier would it be if a child is missing, and the government could just torcher United States citizens to get the answers as to where they were? Say a deranged couple kidnap a little girl, the cops catch the wife, but not the husband, the one with the child.  Think about how much quicker we could figure out where the child was if we pulled off the wife’s finger nails until she told us where they were. If she would not talk, maybe we could use acid drops on bare skin.  Of course Americans are largely against torture, and we all know what the peoples reaction to torture is.

What about the right to own and bear arms? Guns kill people. They are scary. The people are too far removed from the revolution to remember the purpose of the firearm. Through the manipulation of history, it is possible to force the people to conclude that guns are evil.  It is possible to remove the idea that the right to own and bear arms is about sporting, or hunting, rather than defending the rights and liberties of the people from tyrants.  It is easy to paint your opposition as baby killers who bath in baby seal blood, and wear polar bear fur underwear. It is easy to say you are just doing this for our own protection. It is easy to convince people to just lay down their arms. Give up your freedoms so that the government can keep you safe.  Then when, as the facts from history show, these gun control measures fail, and the government has already conditioned us that taking rights is within their power, it will be easier to target the other rights. The people being unarmed, it doesn’t mater if there is any resistance, the subjects cannot stand up to the government.

It is of the upmost importance that we remind ourselves, and our friends that we are not slaves to the government. That we are the kings and they are the servants. That the government is made up of ordinary citizens, and as such it is bound to law.  Thankfully there are those out there who are willing to fight for liberty and remind the government just where it belongs, just who it answers to, and keep it in check.  below is a list of gun manufacturers who will no long be selling firearms to the various governments that are oppressing the peoples right to defend themselves.

These companies will no longer be selling firearms to law enforcement agencies in states that are attacking the rights of the people to protect themselves, no only from criminals, but from the oppression of tyrants.  Manufacture Climags has posted this in its FAQ

Q. Why was my Order Cancelled?
A. Typically it is because the items you ordered are not legal in either the place where it is being shipped to or your billing address. Please double check our High Capacity Laws page. We do NOT make [exceptions] for Military or Law Enforcement, if you want possess these items please get involved with your local politics. If your order is cancelled you will be issued a refund and emailed a reason for the cancellation”

So the manufactures are uniting to defend not only our rights, but thousands upon thousands of jobs, and an untold number of lives.  It is a good sign that there are still people out there willing to remind the government of its place in this world. Remind the progressives tyrants, and make no mistake they have dreams of limitless control over your lives, that they are not all powerful, and that they are subjects to the will of the people, and the laws of this nation.  We must remind them that they are mortals, bound to the same laws that other mortals have created, only God is above the laws of man.

Do not misconstrue this as a call to violence, this a call for support. Support the people willing to take a peaceful stand to these radical progressives.

668.) Good Ol’ Joe has been out there spreading more of his wisdom to the masses.  This time he was describing the reasons why you don’t need an AR-15, how a shotgun is easier to aim and use.   Here is how the Vice President told his wife to defend herself, “I said, Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony… take that double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. You don’t need an AR-15. Its harder to aim, its harder to use and in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.” Where to begin, where to begin.

First off, as with most progressives, The Vice President has displayed his complete and total ignorance to the world in which he is trying to control. Allow me to explain, an AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle. What that means is that when you pull the trigger,  the firearm will discharge one round, eject the spent casing, and load the next round.  I have explained this several times, so most of my readers should be more than aware of the concept of how a SEMI-automatic action works.  However something I have not touched on, is the actual ammunition that a firearm uses.

The AR-15 uses a .223 caliber round. The round is made up of a casing, a primer, smokeless gun powder, and a .223 caliber bullet. When you pull the trigger, the firing pin strikes the primer thus igniting the gun powder. The gun powder burns creating a gas. The gas is less dense than the gun powder was and has a larger volume. The expanding volume creates an area of high pressure inside the casing, the barrel of the firearm is an area of low pressure, any one who took basic physics can tell you that pressures try to equalize. In order for the high pressure gas inside the casing to get to the low pressure barrel it has to go through the bullet. The gasses push the bullet down the barrel.

A Shotgun does not use cartridges, it uses shells. These shells are measured buy gauge and length.  Such as my Remington 870 fires a 12 gauge shell, up to 3.5 inches long.  A shotgun shell is similar in construction to the cartridge used by a rifle.  A shell is made up of a shell casing, a primer, gun powder, a wad, and projectiles.  The projectiles can be bird shot, double ought buck, or a deer slug. Shot is the term used to describe the small bb’s traditionally used in a shot gun. The primer goes in the bottom of the shell, the powder goes in the shell, the wad goes in on top of the powder, the projectiles go into the wad, then the end of the shell is crimped shut. When you pull the trigger the firing pin strikes the primer, thus igniting the gun powder.  The gun powder burns creating a gas. The gas is less dense than the gun powder was and has a larger volume. The expanding volume creates an area of high pressure inside the shell casing,  the barrel of the firearm is an area of low pressure. As we all know pressures try to equalize. In order for the high pressure gas inside the shell casing to get to the low pressure area in the barrel, it pushes the wad, containing the projectile, out of the shell and down the barrel.

So why is a shotgun a shotgun and a rifle a rifle? Well a shotgun is called a shotgun because it fires shot, but does that mean that if you fire a deer slug instead of shot that it is a rifle? No of course not. The AR-15 is called a rifle because its barrel has rifling inside it. The rifling is made up of spiral grooves cut into the barrel. These grooves spin the bullet, giving it stability in flight. It is the same effect of the spiral on a football. A shotgun has a smooth bore barrel. There is no rifling. That means that the shotgun does not have near the range or accuracy possessed by a rifle. This is why shotguns traditionally use shot. When the shot leaves the end of the barrel it spreads out covering a larger area, making it more likely that you will hit your target. A rifle fires one projectile.

So why than is Vice President Biden displaying his ignorance when he says that an AR-15 is harder to aim than a shotgun? A shotgun throws out a large number of projectiles to make hitting a target at close range easier, an AR-15 shoots only one projectile naturally you would have to be a better shot with an AR-15 than a shotgun.  Well I hate to tell you this but, no one who knows anything about firearms would say that it is easier to aim a shotgun than an AR-15. YOU CAN NOT AND DO NOT AIM A SHOTGUN! You point a shotgun. 

Then there is the issue of the fact that an AR-15 is not hard to aim.  It is not hard to shoot. It is not hard to operate.  The AR-15 is designed to look like an M-16 a rifle designed to be used by both drafted and enlisted men with various degrees of firearm knowledge, in stress full situations.  Every aspect of its design where created to make the firearm as accurate and easy to use as possible.  It is light weight, and fires a very small round, making it easy for people  to wield. A shotgun on the other hand, is large, heavy, and awkward to handle unless you have experience with it. Having shot a first generation AR-15, a 2012 M&P AR-15, and countless shotguns, I can tell you that the Vice President has either has no clue as to what he is talking about, or he is, like all progressives, just assuming you are too ignorant to know the difference. The small .223 caliber round, of the AR-15, combined with how well balanced the firearm is, the recoil from an AR-15 is minimal, making it easier to use. A shotgun is not a precision instrument, it is not well balance, it does not fire a small round, it was not designed to reduce recoil at all. I have seen countless young men struggle to be able to hold a 12 gauge, much less fire or handle the recoil of the firearm.  Jesse Bonner, the owner of Jesse’s Gun Shop in Corsicana Texas disagrees with the vice Presidents claims.  “That would not be true, I’ve taught enough ladies to shoot all different types of firearms and I can tell you that the AR-15 is going to be better suited for a lady. It would be better for all around home defense and it’s one of the most accurate guns out there.  The Ar-15 is now a mainstream weapon because of its quality and accuracy.”

Besides the point that Vice President Biden has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to firearms, he is also apparently oblivious to the law. First off, the fact that he is trying to ban guns shows that he doesn’t understand that the government does not have the power to restrict our rights.  Second, if you live in the city you can’t just go out and start shooting willy nilly. You have to fear for your life.  If you are firing up in the air, you are not fearing for your life. You are then threatening someone, which is illegal, you are causing a panic. The point is, Vice President Biden is continuing the war on living by trying to get them arrested or  killed because the choose the wrong means to defend themselves.

So we are always hearing from these radical progressives, that guns are the cause of all evil on the earth. That if we took away the peoples right to own and bear arms, if we gave the government even more control over our lives, the murder and violent crime rates would go down. As is always the case with progressives, they will continue to demand more gun control, demand that we lay down and hand over our rights to the government, no mater the facts of the situation. If you point out how gun laws lead to higher crime rates, they say that you hate kids. If you point out how mass murders, which always seem to spark these gun control debates, are normally the result of failed gun control laws, they say that you want to legalize rape. They don’t listen to facts, they don’t listen to logic, they don’t listen to common sense. All they know is that the hierarchy of their movement has told them that guns are bad, and that you are too stupid have them. 

With that in mind I wonder how the radical progressive zealots will react to the recently leaked internal memo from the Justice Department. The memo in question came from the  National Institute of Justice. The NIJ is “the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice — is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. NIJ provides objective and independent knowledge and tools to reduce crime and promote justice, particularly at the state and local levels”.  The memo was written by the Deputy Director of the NIJ Greg Ridgeway, an man who took the position last year during the campaign. Basically this memo burns the progressive anti-gun manifesto to the ground. The following are quotes from the memo.

On Mass Shootings

“Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.” 

On Buy Back Programs

“Twitter summary: Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban[…]

Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime. 3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.

The 1997 Australia gun buyback and its associated regulations is an exception to this. 1. It was large, buying back 20% of the firearm stock. 2. It targeted semi-automatic weapons. 3. It coupled the buyback with a ban on certain weapons and a nationwide registration and licensing program. There is strong evidence that it reduced mass killings (before the initiative massacres occurred on average once per year and none have occurred in the 15 years since).

The Australia buyback appears to have had no effect on crime otherwise.”

So these buy back programs that we constantly hear about, seem to be nothing more than a dog and pony show, an attempt for politicians to try and look like they are tackling the problem. That is unless, the government takes drastic actions, as was the case in Australia where they saw the number of mass shootings drop after their buy back program.  However, we know that Unfortunatly the crime rates have not abated any, in fact they have increased, I doubt as a result of the buy back program itself, but probably due to the government ban on fire arms, and of course how in 2000 the Australian government confiscated  over 600,000 guns.  From 2000 to 2001, Australia saw its assault rate clime 8.6%, their homicide rate clime 3.2%, and the armed robbery rate climb 44%.  Food for thought.

On Restrictions on Large Capacity Magazines

“The 1994 ban on large capacity magazines had limited effectiveness because 1) Large capacity clips are a durable good 2) There were an estimated 25 million guns with large capacity magazines in 1995 3) The 1994 law exempted magazines manufactured before 1994 so that the importation of large capacity magazines manufactured overseas before 1994 continued through the ban 4) while the price of the clips increased dramatically (80% during the ban) they were not unaffordable. A 2004 study of the 1994 law found: “because the ban has not yet reduced the use of [large capacity magazines] in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” The 1994 ban essentially did little to affect the supply of large capacity magazines.

In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions  would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.”

So straight from the halls of justice, restricting large capacity magazines, something that progressives cry out to the heavens for, actually has no affect on crime rates.  Who would have thought that the government restricting something, would have no affect on its use or on crime rates. Alcohol, drugs, prostitution, speeding come to mind when I think of government restriction.   So now it is time for what to a progressive, is the most dreaded of thought processes, the application of common sense.  Large magazines don’t go bad, they can sit for years without wearing out, there are a lot of them out there, and there is no way to stop the flow of them from outside of our nation. So just how is the government supposed to eliminate them from the streets. Sure you could do a buy back program, so the law abiding citizens who are hard up for cash will turn in their large capacity magazines. But what about the criminal, the person who doesn’t care about the law, doesn’t care about what some elitist in Washington has commanded him to do. The criminal does not care about the nations laws, so why would they care about the legality of their magazine capacity? But for the sake of argument, lets say that the government was able to some how able to round up all the high capacity magazines that are already in the country, do you really think that even if they band all high capacity magazines, not just those made sense 1994, that high capacity magazines would disappear from out streets? The better question I guess would be does a government ban reduce the demand for a good? By looking to history it is possible to find the answers to this question. Did the government ban on alcohol reduce the demand for it during prohibition? Did the government ban on drugs reduce the demand for them? Did the government ban on prostitution reduce the demand? The answer to all of these questions is no. It just created a market for shady men to make their fortunes. The same will be true for banning large capacity magazines. The demand for these items will still be there. If a criminal wants one of these magazines, they will get one. It would be an easy thing for coyotes to start smuggling these large capacity magazines into the nation, a crossed our open boarder with Mexico. A boarder that President Obama and the rest of the progressives refuse to close.  I suppose that makes me a racist, because I think that having an unpatroled boarder is asinine, but if not wanting to endanger  the lives of the people in this nation, for the sake of exploiting a group of people due to their racial background, all for the purpose of political gain, makes me a racist, I can live with that.  To sum this up, according to the Justice Department’s research branch banning large capacity magazines won’t reduce crime rates.

On Universal Background Checks

“Twitter summary: Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process[…]

A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns. Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market.

Supply sources can vary in different parts of the country. An NIJ funded study of the Los Angeles illicit gun market noted: “Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that is, in county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.” Thus, gun markets can be highly local.”

So the Obama Administration hired Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice released a memo that says that universal background checks proposed by President Obama  have no effect on gun crime.   I really can’t explain this any better than this man has.

On Banning Scary Looking Semi Automatic Rifles

“Twitter summary: Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions[…]

Guns are durable goods. The 1994 law exempted weapons manufactured before 1994. The exemption of pre-1994 models ensures that a large stock, estimated at 1.5 million, of existing weapons would persist. Prior to the 1994 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes. Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.[…]

Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback was massive in scale and, while it appears to have had no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no mass shootings since the ban was put in place.”

There it is, straight from the government. A man who was hired from by the Obama Administration, a man who is a higher up in the research arm of the Justice Department, has flat out said that banning scary looking semi automatic firearms would not reduce gun violence in this country.

So gun control, doesn’t work, at least according to the Department of Justice. Que the irrational progressives.

666.) President Obama was asked about his administrations deportation records during his first term, to which he had to this to say “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” of course executing laws only applies to the laws that he supports. If he doesn’t like a law, or say a ruling from the Supreme Court, he just ignores it and does what he wants.  I’ve often wondered if President Obama knows that he is not a king. You wouldn’t know it by the way he continually throws tantrums when the Senate refuses to even debate, much less pass legislation. Of course he blames the house, in spite of the fact that the house actually passes legislation, unlike the senate.  I guess he caught Bide-idas.

667.) President Obama went to Chicago to speak about what he calls common sense reforms, for those of you fluent in Obama-eze,  you know that what he really is saying is Pass my progressive agenda, or I will tell the world how much you hate children, and love barbequed puppy. In Chicago President Obama said, “Last year, there were 443 murders with a firearm in this city, and 65 of them were 18 and under. That’s the equivalent of a Newtown every four months. That’s precisely why the overwhelming majority of Americans are asking for some common sense proposals to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun” what I find funny is that President Obama made no mention of the fact that, Chicago, like every progressive utopia, has already tried to lower crime rates by passing “common sense” proposals. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and it has one of the highest crime rates. How much more evidence is needed, before these people realize that gun control laws don’t keep guns from criminals hands. How about the fact that President Obama went to Chicago the shining example for the failures of gun control, and 4 people were shot within 90 minutes of him leaving.   That’s what I call ironic. 

I speak to you tonight from Washington, D.C. The state of our  economy is tenuous but our people remain the greatest example of freedom and  prosperity the world has ever known.

People say America is exceptional. I agree, but it’s not the complexion of  our skin or the twists in our DNA that make us unique. America is exceptional  because we were founded upon the notion that everyone should be free to pursue  life, liberty, and happiness.

For the first time in history, men and women were guaranteed a chance to  succeed based NOT on who your parents were but on your own initiative and desire  to work.

We are in danger, though, of forgetting what made us great. The President  seems to think the country can continue to borrow $50,000 per second. The  President believes that we should just squeeze more money out of those who are  working.

The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress or in this  Administration seem to recognize that their actions are endangering the  prosperity of this great nation.

Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government  is the problem.

Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes  government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt.

What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards  hard work is what made America so prosperous.

What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our  independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations.

He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with  individuals and their pursuit of happiness.

All that we are, all that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that  you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and eat it too,  that you can spend a trillion dollars every year that you don’t have.

I was elected to the Senate in 2010 by people worried about our country,  worried about our kids and their future. I thought I knew how bad it was in  Washington. But it is worse than I ever imagined.

Congress is debating the wrong things.

Every debate in Washington is about how much to increase spending – a little  or a lot.

About how much to increase taxes – a little or a lot.

The President does a big “woe is me” over the $1.2 trillion sequester that he  endorsed and signed into law. Some Republicans are joining him. Few people  understand that the sequester doesn’t even cut any spending. It just slows the  rate of growth. Even with the sequester, government will grow over $7 trillion  over the next decade.

Only in Washington could an increase of $7 trillion in spending over a decade  be called a cut.

So, what is the President’s answer? Over the past four years he has added  over $6 trillion in new debt and may well do the same in a second term. What  solutions does he offer? He takes entitlement reform off the table and seeks to  squeeze more money out of the private sector.

He says he wants a balanced approach.

What the country really needs is a balanced budget.

Washington acts in a way that your family never could – they spend money they  do not have, they borrow from future generations, and then they blame each other  for never fixing the problem.

Tonight I urge you to demand a new course.

Demand Washington change their ways, or be sent home.

To begin with, we absolutely must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the  Constitution!

The amendment must include strict tax and spending limitations

Liberals complain that the budget can’t be balanced but if you cut just one  penny from each dollar we currently spend, the budget would balance within six  or seven years.

The Penny Plan has been crafted into a bill that millions of conservatives  across the country support.

It is often said that there is not enough bipartisanship up  here.

That is not true.

In fact, there is plenty.

Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their  sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every  taxpayer loses.

It is time for a new bipartisan consensus.

It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs  is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not  immune to waste and fraud.

Where would we cut spending; well, we could start with ending all foreign aid  to countries that are burning our flag and chanting death to America.

The President could begin by stopping the F-16s and Abrams tanks being given  to the radical Islamic government of Egypt.

Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really  needs to be at least $4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America’s credit  rating.

Both parties will have to agree to cut, or we will never fix our fiscal  mess.

Bipartisanship is not what is missing in Washington. Common sense is.

Trillion-dollar deficits hurt us all.

Printing more money to feed the never-ending appetite for spending hurts us  all.

We pay higher prices every time we go to the supermarket or the gas pump. The  value of the dollar shrinks with each new day.

Contrary to what the President claims, big government and debt are not a  friend to the poor and the elderly. Big-government debt keeps the poor poor and  saps the savings of the elderly.

This massive expansion of the debt destroys savings and steals the value of  your wages.

Big government makes it more expensive to put food on the table. Big  government is not your friend. The President offers you free stuff but his  policies keep you poor.

Under President Obama, the ranks of America’s poor swelled to almost 1 in 6  people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment left millions of  Americans struggling and out of work.

The cycle must be broken.

The willpower to do this will not come from Congress. It must come from the  American people.

Next month, I will propose a five-year balanced budget, a budget that last  year was endorsed by taxpayer groups across the country for its boldness, and  for actually solving the problem.

I will work with anyone on either side of the aisle who wants to cut  spending.

But in recent years, there has been no one to work with

The President’s massive tax hikes and spending increases have caused his  budgets to get ZERO votes in both houses of Congress. Not a single Democrat  voted for the President’s budget!

But at least he tried.

Senate Democrats have not even produced a budget in the time I  have been in office, a shameful display of incompetence that illustrates their  lack of seriousness.

This year, they say they will have a budget, but after just recently imposing  hundreds of billions in new taxes, they now say they will include more tax hikes  in their budget.

We must stand firm. We must say NO to any MORE tax hikes!

Only through lower taxes, less regulation and more freedom will the economy  begin to grow again.

Our party is the party of growth, jobs and prosperity, and we will boldly  lead on these issues.

Under the Obama economy, 12 million people are out of work. During the  President’s first term 800,000 construction workers lost their jobs and another  800,000 simply gave up on looking for work.

With my five-year budget, millions of jobs would be created by cutting the  corporate income tax in half, by creating a flat personal income tax of 17%, and  by cutting the regulations that are strangling American businesses.

The only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of  those who earned it!

For those who are struggling we want to you to have something infinitely more  valuable than a free phone, we want you to have a job and pathway to  success.

We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be  the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better  future.

We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities.

We must be the party that says, “If you want to work, if you want to become  an American, we welcome you.”

For those striving to climb the ladder of success we must fix our  schools.

America’s educational system is leaving behind anyone who starts with  disadvantages.

We have cut classroom size in half and tripled spending on education and  still we lag behind much of the world.

A great education needs to be available for everyone, whether you live on  country club lane or in government housing.

This will only happen when we allow school choice for everyone, rich or poor,  white, brown, or black.

Let the taxes you pay for education follow each and every student to the  school of your choice.

Competition has made America the richest nation in history. Competition can  make our educational system the envy of the world.

The status quo traps poor children in a crumbling system of hopelessness.

When every child can, li

Washington could also use a good dose of transparency, which is  why we should fight back against middle of the night deals that end with massive  bills no one has read.

We must continue to fight for legislation that forces Congress to read the  bills!

We must continue to object when Congress sticks special interest riders on  bills in the dead of night!

And if Congress refuses to obey its own rules, if Congress refuses to pass a  budget, if Congress refuses to read the bills, then I say:

Sweep the place clean. Limit their terms and send them home!

I have seen the inner sanctum of Congress and believe me there is no monopoly  on knowledge there.

If they will not listen, if they will not balance the budget, then we should  limit their terms.

We are the party that adheres to the Constitution. We will not let the  liberals tread on the Second Amendment!

We will fight to defend the entire Bill of Rights from the right to trial by  jury to the right to be free from unlawful searches.

We will stand up against excessive government power wherever we see it.

We cannot and will not allow any President to act as if he were a king.

We will not let any President use executive orders to impinge on the Second  Amendment.

We will not tolerate secret lists of American citizens who can be killed  without trial.

Montesquieu wrote that there can be no liberty when the executive branch and  the legislative branch are combined. Separation of powers is a bedrock principle  of our Constitution.

We took the President to court over his unconstitutional recess appointments  and won.

If necessary, we will take him to court again if he attempts to legislate by  executive order.

Congress must reassert its authority as the protector of these rights, and  stand up for them, no matter which party is in power.

Congress must stand as a check to the power of the executive, and it must  stand as it was intended, as the voice of the people.

The people are crying out for change. They are asking for us to hear their  voices, to fix our broken system, to right our economy and to restore their  liberty.

Let us tonight let them know that we hear their voices. That we can and must  work together, that we can and must re-chart our course toward a better  future.

America has much greatness left in her. We will begin to thrive again when we  begin to believe in ourselves again, when we regain our respect for our founding  documents, when we balance our budget, when we understand that capitalism and  free markets and free individuals are what creates our nation’s prosperity.

Thank you and God Bless America.


We are all aware of the Gun Control Debate that is currently taking place a cross the nation.  The problem is that many of the gun control advocates lack creditablity as many dare I say a majority are completely ignorant to the fire arms themselves.  They don’t shoot, so they have no clue about how firearms work.  President Obama, to prove that he is not one of the uneducated few, that he is just as much a sportsmen as all the gun owners of this nation, has released a photo of him shooting skeet.

Now all you radical progressives, and blind Obamalogs out there, I don’t think that this is photo shopped. I am writing this because I want to help President Obama out with his technique.  You see I help teach a program run by a conservation club and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources that educates kids on safe use and handling of a fire arm, as well as safe and ethical hunting practices.  I myself took the program as a young man, and even took first place in the shot gun competition my fourth year. I help teach at the shot gun range.  It is a four year program and I get to help introduce these kids, starting at age 10 or so, and watch as they mature in to young men and exclent shots.   So I have some experince with helping people perfect their form.

To begin, for those of you who don’t know, there are three types of sporting clays. There is Trap Shooting, Skeet Shooting, and sporting clays.  These sports are basically the same, you use a shotgun to shoot clay disks that fly through the air when you shout pull.  However there are some key differences in the sports.  Mainly in the position of where the thrower is.
Trap: In trap the clay pigions are thrown from what is known as the trap house, it is located out in front of where you are shooting. The pigions are thrown up and away from you. They travel either right, left, or straight out from the trap house.

Skeet: In Skeet the clay pigions are thrown from towers on either side of the shooter.  These birds are usually thrown higher than they are in trap, and tend to feel as though they are moving faster. This is mainly due to the fact that they cut a crossed the shooters feild of vision. Either going left or right.

Sporting Clays: Sporting clays is a combination of Trap and Skeet, it is designed to be more like an authentic hunting experince.  The pigions are thrown from a position next to the shooter.  This shooting experince brings in another aspect, and that is the clay rabbit.  These are like pigions but they bounce along the ground, as opposed to flying through the air.

So the White House released this photo, of President Obama skeet shooting and dared the people of the world to claim it was photo shopped. Well I see no reason to believe that it was photo shopped, but I am no expert in photo analysis.  I am however pretty good with a shot gun. So the point of this post is for me to offer up some pointers for the President Obama, so that he can help improve his game.

To begin, President Obama has very good tastes. He choose an excellent fire arm to go out and enjoy a day of skeet shooting. In skeet a good over under firearm is the choice of most shooters. Presidnet Obama chose a Browning Citori Supreme Super Grad Sport.  It has a ported barrel to reduce mussle climb, so you can get off the second shot quicker and more accuratly.   He pretty much has the best skeet shotgun in the United States, except for an Ithica.  So good mark on the gun.

Many shooters are afraid of the shot gun, they hear stories of how hard they kick and they are afraid of getting knocked out by it. President Obama is clearly not afraid of the firearm. He has his head right on the stock, and that gun held tight up against his sholder.  So a good mark for confidence.

Now on to the stance.  President Obama is sitting in the back seat. What I mean by that is that he is leaning back. I am aware that he just fire the shotgun, hence why you can see the wad coming out of the end of the barrel.  However, if he had a proper stance to begin with, he would not be pushed as far back as he is in this picture.  When shooting a shotgun, you lean forward, putting your weight on the front foot.  This helps balance you, and helps your body to absorb the recoil, without falling backwards.  So President Obama, you need to lean into your shots more.  You’ll find it helps you get off your second shot much quicker.

Now on to the position of the shotgun. I was confused when I first saw this picture, it looked like President Obama was shooting a rifle. The shotgun was pointed pretty much level with the ground.  For shooting trap,  this postion would be effective, the trap house is farther away from the shooter, so you are not required to point the shotgun as high.  Skeet requires you to point the shotgun much higher.  So President Obama please point your barrel up, you’ll find you hit more birds when you poin the gun towards where the birds actually are.

I am confused by this photo, either President Obama is not a very skilled skeet shooter (they didn’t send us any photos of him hitting the birds), or the press department got it wrong when he said he was shooting skeet. From the photo, if the President was actually shooting, he would be more likely shooting trap, than skeet. 

My doubts have further been raised, when the piolts of Marine One said that they had to close the gates of the hanger when people are on the skeet range at camp david, to avoid pellets from hitting the helicopter.  They haven’t really had to do that in the last 8 years.   Again hearsay, so no proof. Just food for thought.

Untill I have more information, President Obama take these pointers, and you’ll be dusting those birds in no time.

664.) A shocking revelation has struck the leaders of many of the nations unions. They have suddenly found out that Obamacare, a law that they enthusiastically supported while it was up for debate, is going to drive up their healthcare costs. Worse yet, Obamacare is going to unionized workers less competitive then they already are.  To offset the increased costs the unions want their lower paid members to have access to the federal insurance subsidies, and get to stay on the Union Plan.  Yes top officers from the International Brotherhood of  Teamseters, the perennial favorite  the AFL-CIO, and many other groups plan to keep pressuring the Obama Administration to expand the federal subsidies.  They warn, and this just breaks my heart, I mean I could never in a million years have been able to have forseen this,  unless they have access to the subsidies unionized employeers might have to drop coverage. It breaks the heart, the unions be stabbed in the back by their beloved idol President Obama.  I am sure that while they stood up for President Obama, and supported this legislation, they truely believed that their ol’ buddy President Obama would have their back. Somehow they would be exempt. 

They act as though no one told them that Obamacare was going to cause health care prices to go up.  John Wilhelm, chairman of Unite Here Health, an insurance plan for 260,000 union workers, said, ” I heard him say, ‘if you like your health plan, you can keep it,’ If I’m wrong,, and teh president does not intend to keep his word, I would have severe second thoughts about the law.” Well Mr. Wilhelm, sense this is probably the first time you’ve been burned by the democrat party, President Obama will never admit that he broke his promise, he is far too proficient of a campaigner to leave himself exposed like that.  He said you can keep your plan, he never said that you would be able to keep it. There is the government isn’t going to take it away from you, they are just going to make it so expensive that your employeer drops it.  

You know the legislation was bad, when even the unions are starting to get mad at the democrat party.

665.) President Obama, like many of the great progressive leaders of the past, loves to surround himself with children when he signs a bill that met with conservative opposition.  It is his way of saying “Republicans hate kids.” Well, his beloved health care law shows that perhapes Republicans don’t hate kids as much as he would like you to think they do.  As it turns out, thanks to a glitch in Obamacare, more the 500,000 children could remain unisured.  You see under Obamacare, pretty much everyone has to have health insurance. Your program can be through your employeer, the government (nationalization…), or you can buy your own.  If your one of those poor souls whose company was forced to drop your coverage, or you are currently unemployed of your own free will, or if you can’t afford coverage you can sign up for government subsidized private coverage through the new exchanges. 

So the question is, what is the problem? Look obamacare is giveing people healthcare, look how great it is. However, due to the lack of debate, and the incompetence of the progressive congress that passed the bill, there is a nasty glitch that throws kids out into the gutter.   According to Bruce Lesly, the president of the children advocacy group First Focus, ” the childrens community is disappointed by the administrations decision to deny access to coverage for children based on a bogus definition of affordability.” What is he talking about, what administration decision, what bogus definition of affordiability. Well, like Nancy Pelosi said, they had to shove the bill down our throat, so we could find out just how badly they screwed us… that might not be quite right, but its pretty close.   As it turns out, congress, with their expansive knowledge of absolutly nothing, decided that affordable coverage can’t cost more than 9.5% of family income.   People with coverage the law considres affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets.   Affordablity  is keyed to the cost of self only coverage not to the employee’s family.  This restriction was intended to prevent a mass exodus from employer coverage.  

So what does all of this mean.  Baiscally,  a typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an individual worker.  The cost of family coverage is $15,700.  So if the employeer is unwilling, or unable to help pay for family premiums, the families are in trouble.    They might find themselves unable to afford the premiums, that are sky rocketing thanks to obamacare, and be locked out of the subsidies designed to help them.  So Dad has coverage, but mom and the kids are screwed. Don’t worry President Obama might just override congress, he does it all the time.  Unfotunatly the Obama Administration said that its hands are tied by the way congress wrote the law.   

How typical, Mr. President we made a horrible mistake. No, I didn’t congress did.   Congress may have written the law, but he signed the law. Perhapes if he had taken the time to read the bill, before spitting in the face of the American People, this might not have happened.  This is a perfect example of just why it is that we have a checks and balance system. Had this bill actually gone up for debate, not just a blame the Republicans for breathing session, had they actually done their job and read the bill, perhapes these 500,000 children might not be facing the loss of healthcare coverage.  

These glitches are why Obamacare should be repealed.  Bad legislation won’t get better, just because it screws over more people.