Visit Counter

Monday, November 4, 2013

For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger





When the opponents of ObamaCare (Palin among others) warned of the appending storm of millions of Americans loosing their current insurance Barry scoffed ..."don't listen to them" another favorite catch phrase was, "despite what you may have heard." The MSM was only to happy to go along with the charade writing them off as... "right wing TeaParty wacko's."

Although the opponents are now proven right, and the Supremes said it's constitutional, the train has long since left the station and the rest of America is just now catching on to what habitual liar Barry is



(Believe me...this cartoon doesn't even scratch the surface)




I don't care how you dice it, slice it, sugarcoat this statement:

 "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

It is what it is an out and out lie and he can't spin his way out of it!




BTW...This latest fiasco does make one wonder why those college transcripts are under lock and key?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Source Washington Post



Americans who face higher ­insurance costs under President Obama's health-care law are angrily complaining about "sticker shock,"




 threatening to become a new political force opposing the law even as the White House struggles to convince other consumers that they will benefit from it. 

The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don't meet the law's more-stringent standards. They're finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.

After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city's new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.

That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. "That's just not fair," said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. "This is ridiculous."

If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.

Others are upset because they don't want coverage for services they'll never need or their doctors don't participate in any of their new insurance options.

"There are definitely winners and losers," said Sabrina Corlette, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. "The problem is that even if the majority are winners . . . they're not the ones writing to their congressmen."

The administration says that about 12 million Americans, or 5 percent of the population, buy individual polices — they don't get coverage through their employers or programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Millions of them will be required to get new policies, but many will qualify for federal aid to pay for the premiums. Thus, they will end up with better coverage at lower costs, officials say. If they are sick, they won't be denied coverage or charged more.

But conveying such information is difficult because of the "calamitous" launch of HealthCare.gov, former White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said that "many of the people who have to transition are going to get better insurance for less money, but they just can't tell that right now because they can't get on the Web site."

Republicans have showed little sympathy. Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, appearing on the same program, attacked Obama for his often-repeated pledge that people would be able to keep their health plans if they liked them. Romney said that Obama has engaged in "fundamental dishonesty" that has "undermined the foundation of his second term."

The disruptions being caused by the new law have been especially jolting for those who support the ideals of the health-care overhaul. 

Marlys Dietrick, a 60-year-old artist from San Antonio, said she had high hopes that the new law would help many of her friends who are chefs, actors or photographers get insured. But she said they have been turned off by high premiums and deductibles and would rather pay the fine. 

"I am one of those Democrats who wanted it to be better than this," she said.

Her insurer, Humana, informed her that her plan was being canceled and that the rate for herself and her 21-year-old son for a plan compliant with the new law would rise from $300 to $705. On the federal Web site, she found a comparable plan for $623 a month. Because her annual income is about $80,000, she doesn't qualify for subsidies.

A cheaper alternative on the federal exchange, she said, had a premium of $490 a month — but it was an HMO plan rather than the PPO plan she currently has. "I wouldn't be able to go to the doctor I've been going to for years," she said. "That is not a deal."

And both the HMO and PPO exchange plans she examined had family deductibles of $12,700, compared with her current $7,000.

Robert Laszewski, an industry consultant, said he thinks the rise in rates was inevitable. The new law, he said, has resulted in an estimated 30 to 50 percent increase in baseline costs for insurers.

"We've got increased access for sick people and an increase in the span of benefits, so something's got to give," he said.

Beginning Jan. 1, the new plans must cover 10 essential benefits including pediatric care, prescription drugs, mental-health services and maternity care. In general, policies that don't offer those can't be sold after 2013. (Plans that were in place before March 2010 and essentially ­haven't changed are "grandfathered" and allowed to continue.) Critics, such as Obama, say that the discontinued policies are too skimpy to offer real protections, but some consumers contend the plans meet their needs.

David Prestin, 48, who operates a gas station and diner at a truck stop in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, was unhappy to learn recently that his premiums are slated to rise from $923 to $1,283 next year under Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The insurer said it needed to add maternity care to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

The issue of maternity coverage is a sensitive one for Prestin and his wife, Kathie. They had one child seven years ago, but after she had five miscarriages, they discovered she had an immune issue that prevented her from successfully completing a pregnancy.

At the same time, Prestin said, the new plan would reduce coverage for things he and Kathie need, such as free annual checkups.

The Prestins explored HealthCare.gov. They are not eligible for subsidies, but they found a cheaper plan than the one being offered by their insurer. However, there was another problem: It would have required the couple to switch from the doctors they have seen for more than 16 years and travel more than 100 miles from their home to the nearest major hospital center for treatment — in Green Bay, Wis.

"I pay my taxes. I'm assistant chief of the volunteer fire department here in Cedar River and a first responder for Mid-County Rescue," Prestin said. "You try to be personally accountable and play by the rules, but the more you play by the rules, the more you get beat up on."





Share/Bookmark

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Point the finger or give it?




If there is someone to blame...if there was a man who could have put a stop to ObamaCare...it was John Roberts. A Bush appointee no less. His vote was the deciding vote on the Supreme Court which ruled ObamaCare constitutional.


I wonder how he feels now after Barry promised emphatically, up and own, inside out, you can keep your doctor and health plan? A promise made knowing full well it was an unadulterated lie. One of the leading assertions of ObamaCare was based on a lie to trick millions of Americans into falling for this scam. 


I'm not a lawyer but I found this on another website. 
 “Fraud in the Inducement.” 
 Here’s the definition from a legal dictionary: “the use of deceit or trick to cause someone to act to his/her disadvantage, such as signing an agreement or deeding away real property. The heart of this type of fraud is misleading the other party as to the facts upon which he/she will base his/her decision to act.


If the law itself is based on a lie the obvious question is should it not be overturned? 

When did lying become constitutional?





Yeah you.
He's a major player as to why millions of Americans will receive a cancellation notice from their insurance company.

Maybe you should read the Constitution John. It does not grant the federal government the power to force private commercial transactions.






Share/Bookmark

Friday, November 1, 2013

Sexual predator honored with U.S. postage stamp





First a Muslim stamp and now this.

 2014 stamp to honor Barney Fwaank. 



Wonder how long it'll be before Sandusky gets his?

-------------------------------------------------------




WND


Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

Franklin evidently failed to envisage today's postmodern left. For the conservative, there exists at least one other certainty, and it is this: The degree to which "progressives" attack you corresponds precisely to the degree with which you challenge any among their assorted, distorted and sordid sacred cows.

What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)

What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, "Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems"?

In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man "demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys."

But you can call him Harvey Milk.

Harvey Milk's only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.

And a "progressive" martyr was born.

Merriam Webster defines "pederast" as "one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy." It defines "statutory rape" as "the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law."

Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist. After I publicly addressed this objective reality in the above-mentioned interview, the liberal blogosphere reacted in, shall we say, an informatively defensive manner.

A Huffington Post headline screamed: "Harvey Milk Was An 'Evil Man' Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber."

The always-amusing Right Wing Watch blog breathlessly posted my comments with the header: "Barber: 'Harvey Milk Was Demonstrably, Categorically an Evil Man.'"

And so on.

Here's what's especially telling about their reaction. Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.

That's because they can't.

One of Milk's victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.

Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the "LGBT" community.

Shilts was also Harvey Milk's biographer. In his glowing book "The Mayor of Castro Street," he wrote of Milk's "relationship" with the McKinley boy: " … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him."

In a sane world, of course, the only direction his "new lover" should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today's America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe – is anything but sane.

Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation's foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, "Explaining Milk's many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one 'lover' why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously: 'As homosexuals, we can't depend on the heterosexual model. … We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don't have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There's no reason why you can't love more than one person at a time.'"

Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a "father figure" to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.

Years later McKinley committed suicide.

Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the "very nice" Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.

According to Dols, Milk told him, "Don't tell your parents," and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols' parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general's office.

The incident was evidently swept under the rug.

So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday ("Harvey Milk Day") and, more recently, his own commemorative postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration's USPS.

God bless America?

As troubling as the postage stamp may be, to me – the father of a soon-to-be-teenage boy – the specter of having a "Harvey Milk Day" forced upon millions of California children, parents and educators is even more troubling. Especially in light of Milk's own sordid history with minors.

Even so, and quite obviously, not everyone agrees. Some have said that my reality-based assessment of Harvey Milk is "uncivil." Our historical revisionist friends on the left tend to get a bit snooty when you publicly deconstruct one of their meticulously fabricated mythical martyrs.

I find that odd.

To me, even the mere notion of elevating, to hero status, a man who statutorily raped teenage boys, is what's uncivil.









Share/Bookmark

Thursday, October 31, 2013

BARACK H. (habitual liar) OBAMA



Then

Barry's remarks marked a striking departure from his vow stretching back to 2009:

 "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."


Video 56



When he says you can keep you doctor and health care plan period that's pretty emphatic. Certainly no one could say he was taken out of context not once... but dozens of times... after guaranteeing, assuring, this would never happen!





Now



Barry in Boston yesterday...


"So if you're getting one of these letters (cancelation), just shop around in the new marketplace. That's what it's for," Obama said. He added, "Don’t worry about it, these are bad apple insurers. You can do away with those policies. We can get you new ones. You can go into your exchanges and get a new policy."
  I'm surprised he didn't say, "what difference does it make." 
He also called the plans that are being cancelled "substandard".

According to Barry you're not losing your insurance you are "transitioning"  into a new plan.


Is this f-----the president or a used car salesman?!?! 

His word is his bond is total BS when it comes to Barry.

Excerpt from the WSJ:
Questioned about this on Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said "Well, let's just be clear," which is how he and his boss announce they're about to turn on the fog machine. "What the President said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act that create minimum standards of coverage."

Even theWashington Post (usually one of Barry's trusted ass kissers) gave him 4 Pinocchio's after his Boston speech yesterday.

  



Now that Health and Human Services has confirmed the suspicions of Obamacare opponents (Palin among others) were justified, Barry and his crew are trying to spin their way out of this directing the blame elsewhere which has always been their go to tactic because now everyone is finding out "what's in it."  

---------------------------------------------------------------


The worse president (before Barry) in my lifetime was  Jimmy Carter. He was incompetent but he wasn't a liar. Barry is both. Can he airbrush this away like everything else he has lied about? If its up to the MSM... damn right he can!





Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

ObamaCare...it's not for everyone




Dem’s created ObamaCare, they voted for it, rammed a bill of this magnitude down our throats without one Republican vote, and the Supremes said it was constitutional. Remember when Barry vehemently asserted it was not a tax and the Supremes said it was? You know, in the same vein as you can keep your doctor and health plan, and of course we all watched it on C-Span just like Barry said we would. 

Presently the Dem’s and the Supreme Court have decreed ObamaCare is not good enough for them. It’s only good for the “serfs" in their kingdom. How Americans, even with the help of the MSM siding with Barry fall for this crap is beyond me. 













Share/Bookmark

Obamopoly







                 
     No, it's not just you … this isn't supposed to be funny.
(Click to make larger)

  

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism
By having the government take over everything!
Want to play?
No?
Too bad, you're already playing and just don't know it!

By the way ...You're not winning!







Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Girl on ObamaCare website debacle






When she first went online











After the debacle...

















Share/Bookmark

White House knew as early as 2010 millions would lose health plans under ObamaCare




If video won't load click post title


Video 55


PROOF

So how many times did he say (at least a dozen???)... "you can keep your current plan and doctor"...knowing it was an out and out lie.
I’m shocked!









Conservative commentator Marc Thiessen accused President Obama of a “bold-faced lie” Monday after Fox News confirmed the White House knew as early as 2010 that over 10 million people would lose their current doctor under ObamaCare.

Megyn Kelly reported Monday on “The Kelly File” that an IRS regulation pushed by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 estimated that millions would be unable to keep their health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act.

Thiessen told Kelly he believes the Obama administration intended for people to lose their current health insurance, despite Obama’s repeated claims that “if you like your plan, you can keep it.”

“The smoking gun is there in your hand," he said, referring to Kelly’s copy of the IRS form. "Look, they knew."

He claimed the administration needs these Americans to move into the ObamaCare exchanges to subsidize the law for those who cannot afford health insurance.

However, Thiessen said the White House did not prepare for the issues with the law’s website, which are creating a situation where not only will Americans get dumped from their health insurance plan, they will be unable to buy a new one.

“What the unanticipated consequence of this they’re pushing all these millions of people out of the health care that they liked into ObamaCare, except the people can’t get into ObamaCare,” he said.




Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Barry and his parallel universe



I have posted this before but in our current situation bears repeating. I find it pertinent and hypocritical beyond belief! 

 Don't expect to here anything about this from the MSM.


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006




I guess he was in the Teaparty before there was a Teaparty. 

Wonder if he was audited by the IRS?





Share/Bookmark

Friday, October 11, 2013

“Shopping while non-Muslim”




On a tip from Ed Kilbane
Senior International Correspondent




As the video below points out, in places like Nairobi, Kenya, “shopping while non-Muslim” can get you tortured and murdered.

Last year, an obscure video somehow whipped countless Muslims around the world into a frenzy.

After the gruesome jihadist attack in Kenya, nary a peep was heard from most Muslim leaders and organizations around the world, including here in America. Reformist Muslims like Zuhdi Jasser and Tawfik Hamid who denounced the attack were the exception.

The inescapable conclusion is that, for countless Muslims and their leaders, the lives of “infidels” count for nothing compared to 14 minutes of video that nobody had even seen.



"The religion of peace"

(If video won't load click post title)

Video 54







Share/Bookmark

Monday, October 7, 2013

Very Interesting




On a tip from Bob Sweet




The question of the year.

We are always hearing about how Social Security is going to run out of money.

How come we never hear about Welfare running out of money?

What's interesting is the first group worked for their money . . .
the second group didn't!!















Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The Howling




Another reason Democrats make me sick. They take a tragedy and try to spin it for their own political gain.



DC Mayor Blames Sequester For Navy Yard Deaths





In case you haven't heard...

The recent Colorado flood was also cause by sequestration. 

Remember as you read this it was Bill Clinton who outlawed military bases from carrying arms. 

The military? 

WTF!!!


-------------------------------------------------------------





Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray says sequestration budget cuts might have played a role in Monday's shootings at the Navy Yard.

"We're continuing this investigation," he told CNN Tuesday. "But certainly, as I look at, for example, sequestration, which is about saving money in the federal government being spent, that we somehow skimped on what would be available for projects like this, and then we put people at risk. Obviously, 12 people have paid the ultimate price for whatever—you know, whatever was done to have this man on the base."

It was perhaps inevitable that Democrats would invoke the sequester at some point. It's what they have done repeatedly since the across-the-board federal budget cuts began in March. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has cited sequester cuts in discussing wildfires out West. House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer blamed them after the Boston Marathon bombings. The liberal media is playing along, of course. A recent National Public Radio segment said that the sequester has led to an uptick in suicides on Indian reservations.

Opponents of the sequester would have you believe that the government operates at peak efficiency—that there's no fat to trim and so any reduction in spending threatens some critical program or service. The reality, as GOP Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has pointed out, is that there is plenty of government waste out there that's being funded by taxpayers. The other reality is that without the sequester cuts, government spending would not be trending downward. "Mr. Obama has inadvertently chained himself to fiscal restraints that could flatten federal spending for the rest of his presidency," my Wall Street Journal colleague Stephen Moore wrote recently.

The political left doesn't want to check outlays or even prioritized them because they believe that government spending per se is a social and economic good. Their problem with the sequester is not that they think it's causing wildfires and mass shootings, though they are happy to exploit such events.





Share/Bookmark

Fugitive Snowden in running for European rights prize






Why not? 

Hillary got a medal for getting 4 people killed in Benghazi.

----------------------------------------------------









Fugitive US intelligence analyst Edward Snowden is in the running for a European human rights prize whose past winners include Nelson Mandela and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Snowden, who is in hiding in Russia, is one of seven nominations made by members of the European Parliament for the Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought, a move likely to upset Washington which wants to try him on espionage charges.
Snowden was nominated by the Greens in the European Parliament who said he had done an "enormous service" for human rights and European citizens by disclosing secret US Internet and telephone surveillance programs.

"Edward Snowden has risked his freedom to help us protect ours and he deserves to be honoured for shedding light on the systematic infringements of civil liberties by U.S. and European secret services," Rebecca Harms and Dany Cohn-Bendit, the leaders of the left-leaning Greens, said in a statement.
Revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency monitors vast quantities of email and telephone data of both Americans and foreigners, and a report that Washington spied on the European Union has caused outrage in European capitals.

The other nominees include Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani girl shot in the head by the Taliban last year for demanding education for girls, and Russian former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a critic of President Vladimir Putin who has been convicted of money-laundering, tax evasion and fraud.
The European Parliament's committees vote on a shortlist of three finalists on September 30. The winner will be chosen by parliamentary leaders on October 10.





Share/Bookmark

Monday, September 16, 2013

Lip gloss-not Revlon



Workplace violence?...no really... this time it's true!




Newtown shooting - Barry almost in tears.

Trayvon Martin - Barry files adoption papers.

Navy yard shooting ...barley a whimper.

Barry's press conference gave it like 45 seconds...

Aaron Alexis


...open your bedroom window in the dead of night...whata ya here?
















Share/Bookmark

Friday, September 13, 2013

Emails show IRS’ Lois Lerner specifically targeted tea party



"I have done nothing wrong"

Has turned into...I have done nothing right!


The new revelations:







- In February 2011, Lerner warned that the "Tea Party matter" could be "the vehicle" for a campaign finance law challenge, and shouldn't be left to the Cincinatti IRS office.







So much for "low level rogue employees in Cincinnati" 





- On July 10, 2012, after aide Sharon Light sent Lerner an article about Democrats wanting more disclosure of donors from the FEC -- worried that conservatives were making better use of 501 laws to hide money -- Lerner responded, "perhaps the FEC will save the day."

What is their involvement?






- 15 days later, Lerner pre-spun some negative attention coming around to the delays of tax-exempt applications.







I submit to you Barry knew all about the IRS scandal because in all likelihood he orchestrated it. In the multitude of scandals since Barry took office no one has been fired, let alone put in jail, because in this administration there is no punitive action for the crime of loyalty to their Ruler. 








Share/Bookmark

Hillary Clinton heckled on Benghazi during award ceremony




Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fielded hecklers who hounded her on Benghazi at the tail end of an award acceptance speech she delivered at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Tuesday evening.“When we fail to make progress on the challenges facing our people at home, our standing in the world suffers,” she said, Breitbart.com reported.


Mrs. Clinton was accepting the 2013 Liberty Medal, an honor to recognize her career in public service and advocacy for women’s rights, CBS reported. She told the crowd of hundreds of the U.S. need to balance national security with human rights issues in Syria, and called for American politicians to cross party aisles and strike a chord of unity.

The mostly bland speech received an energy boost at the tail end, when a protester in the midst of the crowd starting chanting: “Benghanzi! Benghazi! Benghazi!”







The Washington Free Beacon reported that Mrs. Clinton did not mention the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, during her remarks. The attacks took place a year ago today — Sept. 11, 2012 — and left four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, dead.

This whole affair is a fascade. The timing incredible!

The administration, including then-Secretary of State Clinton, vowed to investigate and bring to justice the guilty parties, but the issue has since fallen to the wayside.









Share/Bookmark