President Asshat Opens White House Doors To Some Of Africa’s Most Evil Dictators (Pictures/Videos)

Obama’s Monsters Ball: How The White House Opened Its Doors To Some Of Africa’s Most Evil Dictators And Homophobes And Turned Blind Eye To Their Human Rights Record – Daily Mail

.

Equatorial Guinea president Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and his wife Constancia Mangue De Obiang, pictured arriving for a dinner hosted by President Barack Obama for the U.S. Africa Leaders Summit

.
Pictured outside the White House waving and grinning with his wife President Obiang of Equatorial Guinea is Africa’s longest serving dictator after seizing power from his uncle and mentor (who used to hang regime critics from the capital’s street lights) in 1979.

Since then he has won the yearly elections with 99% of the vote. Taking the lead from his uncle, he has since had shot or jailed virtually all political opponents and ruled the country with an iron fist. Despite running one of sub-Saharas biggest oil-producing countries and amassing a personal wealth in excess of an estimated $600million, he’s far from generous with his riches.

The average income of his citizens is $2 a day, few live beyond 53 and 20 per cent of children die before they reach five years of age. Last year the country ranked 163 out of 177 on Transparency International. There is no freedom of the press, the country’s one television station is government-run and clean water is scarce. In 2011, the United States’ Department of Justice made moves to seize more than $70 million in assets from President Obiang’s son, Teodorin Nguema Obiang Mangue.

Justice Department lawyers alleged Nguema, on top of his official government salary of $100,000, used his position to amass more than $100 million through corruption and money laundering, including a $30 million dollar mansion in Malibu, California, a $38.5 million Gulfstream jet and one of the world’s finest Michael Jackson memorabilia collections including the red and black ‘Thriller jacket’ and Jackson’s crystal-studded ‘Bad Tour’ glove worth more than $2m. He was also the focus of a corruption investigation in France who seized his 101-room Paris mansion, a collection of cars and other luxury assets. He has repeatedly denied the allegations.

.

President Blaise Compaore (With First Lady Chantal Compaore) of Burkina Faso seized power in a bloody coup

.
Burkina Faso’s Blaise Compaore is another African leader who seized power by bloody coup. The Burkina Faso president’s 1987 uprising left his predecessor Thomas Sankara dead – who himself had taken power four years earlier alongside Compaore. In 2011 he watched as protests gave way to calls for his resignation over claims of police brutality and government corruption. However, his presidential guard eventually squashed a mutiny, then made concessions to appease the remaining protesters – but questions remain over corruption among the ruling elite.

.

Cameroon president Paul Biya (with his wife Chantal Vigouroux) pictured at the President Obama’s summit yesterday

.
Paul Biya has the dubious honour of ranking nineteenth on author David Wallechinsky’s 2006 list of the world’s 20 worst living dictators. The Cameroon’s grip on his country’s presidency has remained tight since he came to power in 1983 and there have been widespread allegations of fraud and voting consistencies in every election cycle. In fact, Mr Wallechinsky claims in the Huffington Post Biya is credited with the innovative election fraud tactic of paying for a set of international observers to certify his elections as legitimate.

.

Angolan president Jose Eduardo dos Santos (in Japan) Human rights groups claim his government has murdered many

.
Human rights groups claim Angolan president Jose Eduardo do Santos has murdered many and exploited the country’s resources to his own gain. After Mariah Carey was paid $1million for performing for him last year, Human .Rights Foundation president Thor Halvorssen said: ‘It is the sad spectacle of an international artist purchased by a ruthless police state to entertain and whitewash the father-daughter kleptocracy that has amassed billions in ill-gotten wealth while the majority of Angola lives on less than $2 a day’

.

President of Gambia Yahya Jammeh (with his wife, First Lady Zineb Jammeh) attended the dinner at the White House

.

arack Obama shakes hands with Gambia’s Yahya AJJ Jammeh as the presidents pose for an official photo

.
Gambian president Yahya Jammeh took power in a military coup in 1994. Although the coup itself was bloodless, in the 20 years since he has been accused of countless breaches of human rights. In 2008, he threatened to ‘cut off the head’ of any homosexuals in the country. The following year, it was reported up to 1,000 Gambians had been abducted by the government on charges of witchcraft – they were taken to prisons and forced to drink poison.

Watch Video Here:

.

.
Good morning, everyone. Michelle and I were honored to host you and your wonderful spouses at dinner last night. I hope people didn’t stay out too late. The evening was a chance to celebrate the bonds between our peoples. And this morning, we continue our work, and it’s my privilege to welcome you to this first-ever U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit.

So we come together this week because, even as the continent faces significant challenges, as I said last night, I believe a new Africa is emerging.

To my fellow leaders, I want to thank you and your teams for helping us to shape our agenda today. Our work can build on the valuable contributions already made this week by civil society groups, the private sector, young Africans, and – at our first session of this summit – our faith communities, which do so much to sustain the U.S.-Africa relationship. Different though they may be, our faith traditions remind us of the inherent dignity of every human being and that our work as nations must be rooted in empathy and compassion for each other, as brothers and as sisters.

Today is an opportunity to focus on three broad areas where we can make progress together.

Number one, we have the opportunity to expand trade that creates jobs. The new trade deals and investments I announced yesterday are an important step. And today we can focus on what we can do, as governments, to accelerate that investment – economic and regulatory reforms, regional integration, and development so that growth is broad-based, especially among women, who must be empowered for economies to truly flourish.

Second, we have the opportunity to strengthen the governance upon which economic growth and free societies depend. Today we can focus on the ingredients of progress: rule of law, open government, accountable and transparent institutions, strong civil societies, and respect for the universal human rights of all people.

And finally, we have the opportunity to deepen our security cooperation against common threats. As I said, African security forces and African peacekeepers are in the lead across the continent. As your partner, the United States is proud to support these efforts. And today, we can focus on how we can continue to strengthen Africa’s capacity to meet transitional threats – transnational threats, and in so doing make all of our nations more secure.

Watch Video Here:

.

.

Rwanda president Paul Kagame’s rule over his country has been notable for its restrictions on the press – (seen here at the White House on Tuesday with his daughter, Ange Ingabire Kagame)

.

Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame with Barack Obama at the White House on Tuesday

.
When he came to power in 2000, Rwanda’s president Paul Kagawe inherited a nation still raw from the brutal genocide of 1994 which claimed up to one million lives. But during his heavy-handed time in power, the country’s ranks for press freedom have plummeted and a suspicious number of public and political opponents have been harassed or have died in increasingly suspicious circumstances.

.

Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan casting a vote in his country’s 2011 elections

.

Barack and Michelle Obama have an official portrait taken with Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan

.
Goodluck Jonathan, president of Nigeria, signed harsh anti-gay laws this year. They criminalise gay relationships, being involved in gay societies and organizations and gay marriages. Violation of this law can result in up to 14 years in prison, with dozens of homosexuals already jailed. Jonathan also sparked major controversy over his decision in 2012 to end fuel subsidies. He is also accused of pardoning corrupt politicians.

.
………………….

.
Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta is embroiled in major controversy over electoral violence. He has pleaded innocent to murder and other charges for an alleged role in organizing violence that left more than 1,000 people dead after Kenya’s 2007 elections. The case is before an international criminal court, and Obama pointedly skipped visiting Kenya when he toured Africa with his family last summer.

.
………………….

.
Guinea president Alpha Conde came to power in December 2010 and while known for his brainpower and charm – has also been criticised for being impetuous and authoritarian.This assessment comes not just from his political opponents, but from his allies, too, according to the BBC. Opposition figures accused him of rigging the vote in the December 2011 parliamentary elections. However, after agreeing to delay the vote until 2013, Conde’s Rally of the Guinean People won, with the Supreme Court stamping its approval on proceedings.

.

Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta with Barack and Michelle Obama

And look who else was there…

.

Former U.S. President George W. Bush pictured joking with one of the spouses of the African leaders at a symposium organised by Michelle Obama

.

Smile! President Barack Obama and African leaders pose during the family photo session at the U.S. Africa Leaders Summit, on Wednesday, Auhust 6, 2014, at the State Department in Washington

.

Good job: US President Barack Obama ((L)) appauds with African leaders during a group photo at the US-Africa Leaders Summit at the US State Department in Washington DC

.

Finger wagging: President Barack Obama, front row third from left, points his finger upwards as he arrives for the official family photo at the US African Leaders Summit at the State Department in Washington

.

.

White House Bribing Health Insurance Companies To Keep Rates Down Ahead Of Midterms (Allen West)

White House Bribing Health Insurance Companies To Keep Rates Down Ahead Of Midterms – Allen West

.
…………

.
It was the line from The Godfather that will never be forgotten: “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse.” The Chicago thugocracy of Barack Hussein Obama took that tactic with health insurance companies to make them swallow Obamacare in the first place, and is now quietly bribing them to “postpone” rate hikes scheduled to come out right before the midterms.

According to Forbes.com, ” Hidden in the midst of a 436-page regulatory update, and written in pure bureaucratese, the Department of Health and Human Services asked that insurance companies limit the looming premium increases for 2015 health plans. But don’t worry, HHS hinted: we’ll bail you out on the taxpayer’s dime if you lose money. No wonder there wasn’t a press release. The White House is playing politics with Americans’ health care – and they’re bribing health insurance companies to play along.”

Ok, let me clarify: the Obama administration has sneaked in a regulatory rule update asking health insurance companies not to do their job accurately if it means higher insurance premiums. After all Obama – aka Vito Corleone – stated Obamacare would bring about an average reduction of $2500 to healthcare premiums. Now, here is the offer the insurance companies can’t refuse: “even if you’re losing money, we’ll square it away for you” – with taxpayer dollars of course.

So in the long run, the hard-working American middle-income family gets screwed either way! Either they’ll have to pay higher premiums or pay the government through higher taxes – such as Obama’s desired higher gas taxes – in order to compensate the insurance companies. And here we thought Obama REALLY didn’t like those insurance companies.

Now, silly me, I thought bribery was a felony offense. Oops, there I go again using logic and common sense when assessing the Obama administration – heck, they’re having problems with computer hard drives, bribery is just par for the course.

And to think the Washington Post just gave President Obama three more “pinocchios” for lying. Nah, none of this matters – it’s certainly not “impeachable.” It’s just liberal progressive socialist politics as usual – fear, intimidation, coercion, lies and deception. Can you imagine what would be happening if this were a revelation occurring under a Republican president?

But be careful, you don’t want to be accused of racial animus because you’re questioning the president’s bribery policy. And I don’t think the U.S. Department of Justice will be investigating this, do you?

Why is all of this happening now? Why it’s simple. There’s an election coming in November 2014 and the last thing Obama, his personal consigliere Valerie Jarrett and the Democrats want is for 2015 healthcare insurance premium increases to be announced in September. And Obama accuses everyone else of playing politics.

As Forbes reports, “typically, insurance companies release their premium rates between summer and early fall – i.e., right before voters cast their ballots in November. If premiums skyrocket—which looks increasingly likely – then voters won’t look too kindly on Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare and created this problem. Hence the White House’s desperate damage control. It almost worked: No one noticed when the regulations were first released. In fact, it took days for any news outlet to find the language and then translate it into readable English. TownHall.com figured it out first. The Los Angeles Times then reported that “hold[ing] down premium increases for next year” is a “top priority” for President Obama since “rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.” Wow, give the LA Times a Scooby Snack for getting that one right!

Forbes says “even if the healthcare insurance industry doesn’t want to play along, it’s still in these companies’ best interests to assent to the administration’s “request.” Under Obamacare, insurers are so heavily regulated that they have to play nice with the bureaucrats who call the shots. The president isn’t the only government official who carries a big stick. If insurance companies don’t give in, regulators have powerful ways to make life hard for them. A shrewd CEO doesn’t need to look far to see what might happen if his company opts out. This administration already has a reputation for strong-arming dissenting businesses in other industries.”

Don’t believe how bad it could be? Just ask the coal industry and the small community banks. Of course, this will once again be dismissed and the White House may still get away with its attempted sleight of hand. Technically, the regulations don’t force health insurance companies to hold down their premium increases. But the White House isn’t asking nicely. Does it ever?

If the GOP can awake from its stupor and acknowledge the other side doesn’t play nice, perhaps they’ll start winning elections. This is the politics of Moose and Rocco, and exactly what Americans consented to when they voted to have Chicago come to Washington D.C.

P.S. Hillary is from Chicago too.

.

.

Most Corrupt Administration In History To Honor Illegals As “Champions Of Change” At White House Ceremony

White House To Welcome In, Honor Illegal Immigrants – Daily Caller

.
…………

.
President Obama’s White House will honor illegal immigrant activists at a ceremony Tuesday.

Two activists with the group Mi Familia Vota Education Fund will be honored as “Champions of Change” at a special White House ceremony.

Fernanda Zaragoza-Gomez, 19, a Colorado Mi Familia Vota canvasser, and Steven Arteaga Rodriguez, a Texas activist with the group, are both “DREAMers” who began their activism careers after applying for and gaining Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program established by Obama to provide living and working status for undocumented young immigrants.

The activist group, which has offices in six states, works for the goal of “expanding the electorate” through “direct, sustainable citizenship, voter registration, census education, GOTV and issue organizing in key states.”

Mi Familia Vota’s board of directors includes labor leader Eliseo Medina, who said in a 2010 speech that immigration reform will create a long-term progressive “governing coalition.”

“My father was deported and I never saw him again before he died,” honored activist Zaragoza-Gomez said in a statement. “I will keep working with Mi Familia Vota to grow Latino voter participation and push for commonsense immigration reform so that one day, other families won’t have to be separated, like I was from my father.”

While the White House is teaming with law enforcement officers, no arrests are expected to be made Tuesday.

The Daily Caller previously reported that Valerie Jarrett held a handful of secret meetings with illegal immigrant activists.

.

.

At Least 80 White House Staffers Knew About Bergdahl Deal, But Obama “Couldn’t Tell Congress”

As Many As 90 Obama Regime Staffers Had Prior Knowledge Of Bergdahl Deal, But Obama “Couldn’t Tell Congress” – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Yeah, even the Democratic Congress folk aren’t buying this one…

Via Newsmax:

Between 80 and 90 administration staffers knew about the trade of five Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl even though Congress was kept in the dark, CNN reports, and members of both parties are unhappy about it.

During a classified briefing to the entire House of Representatives late Monday afternoon, White House officials said that up to 90 people had prior knowledge of the trade.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon called that news “disturbing,” partly because of the high number who knew and partly because the White House has been saying it didn’t inform Congress until after the swap was made because it feared Bergdahl’s life might be in danger if there had been a leak.

Keep reading

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The Top 8 White House Bergdahl Lies (Joseph Miller)

The Top 8 White House Bergdahl Lies – Joseph Miller

.
…………

.
It’s been just over a week since Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was released in exchange for five senior Taliban leaders held in Guantanamo Bay, and so far the Obama administration is averaging nearly a lie a day. Here are the top eight administration claims, laid out and debunked in full.

LIE #1: BERGDAHL WAS VERY SICK

Bergdahl’s health was not rapidly deteriorating, as the administration claimed. Reports have leaked that the only medical problems Bergdahl is suffering from are “gum and skin disorders” associated with poor hygiene.

The video of Sgt. Bergdahl’s handover to American forces that was released by the Taliban shows Sgt. Bergdahl looking relatively healthy. In the tape, he is seen walking into the company of U.S. special operations forces and then climbing into the aircraft without assistance. The video also shows him lucid and communicating with his captors. We know from previous reporting that he was able to write down the letters “SF” with a question mark on paper once inside the helicopter, as a way of asking his rescuers if they were special forces. This proved that his fine motor skills were intact, and that he was aware of his surroundings.

It has also been reported that one of the few exchange between Bergdahl’s rescuers and his captors was a question about his health. The Taliban said he was not sick. Finally, reports from Landsthul Regional Medical Center in Germany state that Sgt. Bergdahl has been in stable condition.

LIE #2: THE TALIBAN THREATENED TO KILL BERGDAHL

To further justify its decision not to inform Congress (in violation of the law), administration officials claimed that there was a threat to kill Bergdahl if details of the prisoner swap were released. But Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has stated that there is no credible information indicating that there was a threat to Berghdal’s life.

LIE #3: THE ADMINISTRATION INFORMED CONGRESS ABOUT THE SWAP

Reports from Capitol Hill have informed us that the administration last discussed the possibility of a prisoner transfer with members of Congress several years ago. At that time, there was bipartisan and bicameral opposition to the idea. The law requires that the administration notify Congress 30 days prior to the release of any detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The administration has admitted that it engaged in negotiations to secure the deal that set Bergdahl free for over a week prior to the swap. During that week, the administration never informed Congress – and only notified congressional leaders after the deal had been reached, after the detainees from Guantanamo were released, and after Berghdal was in American custody.

It appears that the administration chose to willfully violate the law by not informing Congress, as we now know that there was no credible threat to Bergdahl’s life, he wasn’t ill, and the administration was negotiating for over a week with his captors.

LIE #4: THE U.S. DIDN’T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS

The president’s national security adviser, Ambassador Susan Rice of Benghazi infamy, returned to the Sunday morning talk show circuit last weekend to defend the Obama administration’s decision to release the terrorists. When CNN’s Candy Crowley asked, “Point blank, did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists?” Ambassador Rice said no.

She claimed that by negotiating through the government of Qatar, the United States didn’t negotiate with terrorists. The problem is that the government of Qatar wasn’t holding Sgt. Bergdahl captive – the Haqqani Network was. The Obama administration officially designated the Haqqani Network a terrorist group in 2012.

LIE #5: BERGDAHL SERVED WITH HONOR AND DISTINCTION

On ABC’s “This Week,” Rice said that Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” By all accounts his service was not honorable, but was in fact distinct: Bergdahl has the distinction of being the only American soldier to desert his post in Afghanistan and walk into the arms of the enemy.

Statements about him being a traitor, however, are premature. There is not yet a clear indication as to why he deserted his post, or if he aided the enemy. Claims that he trained the Taliban in explosives are hard to believe, because as a private first class infantryman in the Army, Bergdahl would have had little to no explosives training other than basic familiarization, which every soldier receives.

But there is plenty of reason to be plenty suspicious. It’s been said that Bergdahl mailed home his personal items two weeks before he walked off his post – something completely abnormal in a combat zone. It has also been said that he left behind his weapon, body armor and helmet, only taking a compass with him. Additionally, reports in the press stated that Afghan villagers have said Bergdahl wandered around asking to meet with Taliban.

Only time will tell if these claims are true, but it is becoming pretty clear based on the testimony of his former platoon mates, and the Army’s preliminary investigation into the incident, that Bergdahl did in fact desert his post.

LIE #6: THE RELEASE OF THE TERRORISTS POSES LITTLE OR NO RISK TO THE U.S.

Just days after being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba family members of one of the five detainees released by the United States told NBC news that the former Taliban commander, Mullah Norullah Nori, planned to return to the fight in Afghanistan. Nori is a former Taliban Provincial Governor and is said to be responsible for the Shia Muslim genocide in Western Afghanistan prior to 9/11. The attacks he ordered against his own countrymen resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians who were slaughtered for practicing a different form of Islam than the Taliban.

LIE #7: THE FIVE TERRORISTS RELEASED FROM GUANTANAMO BAY WILL BE UNDER U.S. MONITORING

U.S. officials have publicly stated that the United States will be actively monitoring the released terrorists while they remain in Qatar for one year. The administration claimed that the terrorists would remain in Qatari custody for at least one year before being permitted to travel outside that country. Qatari government officials, however, said that the deal that was reached did not allow for U.S. monitoring of the detainees, and that they would be free to move about the country while they remained in Qatar.

The Qataris did say that they would be monitoring the detainees while they remained as guests in their country. This is not comforting, though, because Qatar has failed to do so at least twice in the past – despite guarantees made to the U.S. government.

In 1996, the United States believed that Qatari intelligence officials were monitoring the movements of Khalid Sheik Mohammad while he was in their country. He was able to evade their monitoring efforts and went on to mastermind the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Another terrorist the Qataris were supposed to be watching after his release from Guantanamo Bay Cuba, Jarallah al-Marri, also managed to leave Qatar and was arrested in London in 2009.

LIE #8: THIS WAS THE “LAST, BEST CHANCE” TO BRING BERGDAHL HOME

I don’t know what crystal ball the administration was using to make this claim, but there is no indication that this is true.

To date, the Taliban have failed to engage in any meaningful peace talks with the U.S. or the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban have said that they will not negotiate as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan. With the U.S. and her coalition allies scheduled to leave Afghanistan at the end of this year, it is quite plausible that resolving the status of Bergdahl and the five terrorists that were just released from Guantanamo Bay could have helped secure a larger peace agreement. That is pure speculation, but is no more speculative than the administration’s claim that this was the last, best chance to secure Bergdahl’s release. What is their speculation based on?

Bergdahl was release May 31. In the days since, the administration has pushed the narrative that he was ill; his life was threatened; Congress was informed; this was not a negotiation with terrorists; he served with honor and distinction; the released Taliban leaders are not a threat; the Gitmo Five will be monitored by the U.S.; and this was the “last, best chance” to bring Bergdahl home. Every single one of these statements has been shown to be false – to be a lie.

So which is it, Mr. President? We’d all like to know.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Joseph Miller is the pen name for a senior Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

7 Blockbuster Obamacare Charts That The White House Doesn’t Want America To See (Kyle Becker)

7 Blockbuster Obamacare Charts That The White House Doesn’t Want America To See – Kyle Becker

Remember all those promises that were made to sell Obamacare? Like lowering premiums for a family of 4 by $2,500 a year, allowing people to keep their plans and their doctors, not adding a dime to the deficit, and all of that?

Well, let’s just see how much of a striking success “Obamacare” is based on the numbers so far. The Heritage Foundation created these charts based on the HHS’ own numbers, the CBO’s, and the Kaiser Family Foundation’s.

.

If you’re a young person, you’re pretty much screwed. Not only will you be paying higher premiums to subsidize your elders, you will be paying more taxes over your lifetime to pay back the loans we’re accruing just to pay for this boondoggle. You’re welcome, right?

.

So… Mr. Smooth was going to save a family of four $2,500 a year in premiums, as promised so many times it’s laughable. About that… a family of four is likely to get an increase in premiums, and in addition, basically anyone who wants to work and live the American Dream will be penalized with higher taxes.

.

Speaking of taxes, check out these bad boys. Not just one, but 18 new taxes lumped into one giant bill that should be called “Obamatax.” Hey, it’s not a tax! Oh yeah, well, now it is.

.

You would think from all the hysteria nowadays about Medicaid expansion to the states that this was the main purpose of Obamacare – to spread a huge soviet-style welfare program to as many homes as possible (and let those who are on it tell ya about the amazin’ service while they’re at it!) Anyway, let’s frame some of that left-wing hypocrisy by pointing out Obamacare’s massive cuts to another government program – Medicare.

.

Now, show him the deductibles, Bob! Average deductibles on the “Catastrophic,” “Bronze,” and “Silver” plans are going through the roof. (No worries if you live in Colorado or Washington, just light up a joint and forget you read this.)

.

Now here comes the biggie – cost. If you were one of the supporters of this law who thought it wouldn’t “add a dime” to the deficit, I want you to turn to your (theoretical) children and grandchildren and apologize. We’ll wait.

No, tell them the part how you’ll be sticking your kids with your generation’s bills, and how debt is the unpaid portion of the federal budget that gets passed on to someone else.

Still don’t feel guilty? How about realizing that all those taxes coming out of the private sector to pay for this disaster will limit your children’s future, as being evidenced in part by the half of college graduates who can’t find jobs in their fields? Oh, now you feel guilty.

.

And lo and behold, this healthcare “reform” boondoggle passed through procedural gimmickry with no bipartisan support whatsoever loaded with nonsense and unread in full by most of the nation’s “representation” in Washington still has very little support – beyond those Democrats who would support anything the party told them to.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Sign The White House Petition To Overturn “Gun Free Zone” Directive On Military Bases

Let Our Military Personnel Be Able To Defend Themselves: Petition Underway To Overturn “Gun Free Zone” Rule On Military Bases – Weasel Zippers

.
petition

.
Obama gave a short speech after the Fort Hood shooting yesterday, speaking about the military at Fort Hood. ‘They serve with valor, they serve with distinction and when they’re at their home base, they need to feel safe,’ Obama said.

Yet, it is the very rules that he enforces that leave the military unsafe. Due to military directive, military bases are “gun free zones” where regular military are not allowed to carry firearms. This leaves them open to attack and unable to defend themselves. In recent years, we have seen attacks and attempted attacks on military bases: the first Fort Hood shooting on November 5, 2009, by terrorist Nidal Hassan, the shooting at the Navy Yard in September 2013, and this latest shooting at Fort Hood. In May of 2007 the FBI arrested six radicalized Islamist men who were plotting to attack Fort Dix. Because bases are gun free zones, terrorists or those meaning to do harm, know they have at least several minutes to kill people before police can arrive to stop them.

There are actually multiple petitions that people have started, but this is the one that seems to have the most signatures so far.

Our hearts are saddened to learn of yet another shooting on a military installation in the United States. Yet again, service members who train regularly to responsibly handle firearms were murdered on base and were unable to defend themselves.

Concealed carry policies provide not only an appropriate means for self defense against violence, but also a proven deterrent. Our military installations have become “soft” targets for those who would harm our military members. Lawful, concealed carry by responsible service members could have prevented or lessened the severity of these incidents.

The DoD should set forth CCW regulations permitting service members in good standing who have received firearms training to carry concealed firearms on DoD installations.

A petition last year asked the White House to make itself “gun free” since it seems to believe that is the best way to protect people. The White House rejected that petition, exposing their fundamental hypocrisy. Apparently, the White House believes its occupants are entitled to protection that children and our military are not.

.
………………….

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles/video:

.
End ‘Victimization Zones’ On Military Bases – Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham

When I started Open Carry Texas last year, my focus was on educating the public about the benefits of an armed society. I hear all the time from proponents of gun control that “in this day and age” it’s so important to restrict access to firearms to prevent people from using them to commit evil atrocities. The problem with this philosophy is that gun control laws only victimize law abiding citizens by making them defenseless.

By definition, criminals don’t obey laws, no matter how altruistic and holistic those laws may be.

For years on my personal blog, A Soldier’s Perspective, I spoke out against so-called gun-free zones. My first awareness about the pitfalls of these victimization zones, as I call them, came in 1991. Originally hailing from Temple, Texas, the Luby’s shooting hit home for me. I was only in high school at the time, but recognizing that a member of my family could have been in that restaurant on Oct. 16, 1991, I was acutely aware of the impact that shooting had on my stance on gun control.

Then, in 1993, Army Regulation 190-14 (Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties) was updated with new rules on what, when and how soldiers could carry firearms on military installations. The policy banned all manner of carry except for “DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties.”

It became the Army’s policy that “the authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.” Naturally, this policy was implemented prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Since that Army policy went into effect and other services followed suit there have been nearly two dozen shootings at military installations. I vividly remember shortly after arriving to my new unit at Fort Stewart, Ga., when Private First Class Craig Jones walked into the orderly room of his unit and shot Sergeant Michael Santiago in the chest and arm, killing him. This was in March 2002.

In September 2008, a soldier at Fort Hood shot and killed his lieutenant before committing suicide. Specialist Armano Baca shot Sgt. Ryan Schlack in July 2009 on the same base. Since guns were banned on military installations, there have been shootings on Fort Drum, Fort Carson, Fort Bragg, Fort Knox and many other military installations!

In November 2009, I was out-processing Redstone Arsenal, Ala., en route to my new assignment on Fort Hood, Texas. At the same time, Army Maj. Nidal Hassan walked into a deployment center on Fort Hood and opened fire on his fellow soldiers, killing 13 and injuring 30 others.

And all of these shootings happened in gun-free zones. Every single one of these shootings happened at a place where the very people trained to deal with armed attackers were defenseless against an armed attacker.

No one can say for certain these incidents would disappear were soldiers allowed to carry personal firearms. However, it can be said with a certainty that any future tragedy will be executed unopposed as long as soldiers are not at least given the opportunity to defend themselves. There’s a saying that it’s better to have a gun and not need it, than not have a gun and need it.

After every one of these tragedies, we as a nation wring our collective hands trying to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent the next shooting. And each time, the simple idea of allowing troops to carry concealed firearms never seems to cross our minds. Why not?

I believe that one reason we are hesitant to allow troops to carry in uniform is because we think arming soldiers will lead to more such shootings. Many people said the same thing about Texas when we were debating the concealed handgun law. Critics said there would be blood in the streets. But, this isn’t backed up by logic, fact, or even experience.

Right this second, virtually every soldier in Afghanistan is carrying a loaded weapon, whether it be a pistol or a rifle. At the very least, they are carrying an unloaded weapon with ammunition readily available and at their disposal. No one can honestly say that being deployed is less stressful than being back home in a garrison environment. Yet, in spite of the prevalence of firearms in the hands of nearly every single troop in a stressful combat environment, the existence of fratricide is practically non-existent.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to suggest that soldiers are more or less capable of managing their emotions with a firearm in one environment over another. The fact remains that in spite of the 1993 regulation and policy, service members are carrying guns onto military installations and killing unarmed victims; victims that may have had a chance to live if they were permitted an opportunity to defend themselves. Even when not carrying guns on military installations, many service members are carrying them off base without feeling the urge to shoot the first person that looks at them cross-eyed.

How many more of my brothers and sisters must die before we, as a nation, wake up and put an end to these ironically titled “gun-free zones”? How many more examples of innocent, unarmed citizens being slaughtered by men with evil intent must we endure? Why do we disarm the very people who are the most well-trained in the use of firearms in defensive and offensive situations?

I am not arguing that the military simply abolish its policy altogether and just allow everyone and their mother to carry a firearm onto a military installation – though I don’t see why not. After all, there is a constitutional amendment that recognizes that right. But, I’ve never been one to identify a problem without a solution.

The military should initiate a policy that, at a minimum, allows soldiers with concealed handgun licenses to carry their firearms on them. The Department of Defense could even institute its own concealed handgun licensing requirement so at the very least it knows which soldiers are armed and whether they are qualified. To combat the constant stream of motorcycle deaths, the Army instituted a program that requires soldiers to be trained and certified prior to riding a motorcycle onto a military installation.

Why not train and certify soldiers in order to permit them to carry a concealed handgun on post? Those who are trained and certified would be required to renew their certifications annually or whenever they move to another military installation. Guns brought onto military installations are already registered, so make that another aspect of the licensing requirement. If a soldier wants to carry a different handgun, he/she must be re-certified with the new handgun they wish to carry.

Whatever we do, it’s obvious that what we are currently doing doesn’t work. It’s not working in gun-free shopping centers; it’s not working in gun-free schools; it’s not working in gun-free cities; and it doesn’t work in gun-free military installations.

In December 2012, NRA Executive Director Wayne Lapierre, eloquently stated: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or a minute away?”

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Gun owners who jump through the hoops to become licensed gun owners are even less likely to commit crimes. In Texas, only .18 percent of gun owners have committed ANY crime at all. Hardly any of those crimes were committed with a gun. The time to end gun free zones is now, no matter where they exist.

C.J. Grisham is president and founder of Open Carry Texas, a Texas-based organization dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms and has over 19 years of active military service. He has been writing about gun rights on his blog, A Soldier’s Perspective, since 2005. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army or any branch of the government.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.
Petition To Allow Military Personnel To Carry Concealed Weapons – Liberty Federation

Petition To: All Members of Congress & President Obama

.
…………

.
Military service members must be allowed to carry concealed firearms on all Federal and State installations. Had concealed carry been permitted, service members could have potentially stopped the shooters at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Yard. We must stop denying our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines the right and ability to defend themselves when targeted in mass shooting events.

We demand that you immediately pass legislation that allows for military service members the right to carry concealed weapons on all Federal and State facilities where they are either based or currently assigned.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

White House Counsel Robert Bauer: Architect Of IRS Abuse? (J. Christian Adams)

White House Counsel Robert Bauer: Architect Of IRS Abuse? – J. Christian Adams

When the FBI finally fires up its criminal investigation of the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, there is one person the special agent in charge better be sure to interview – former White House Counsel Robert Bauer. The FBI may discover the whole IRS mess leads through the land of campaign finance “reform” and an obsession with speech regulation, an obsession shared by Bauer.

Any criminal investigation identifies for further scrutiny those with motive, opportunity, and means, and Bauer deserves no quarter from FBI investigators on those three counts.

.
…………………..

.
THE CRIMES

Without any doubt, crimes were committed by IRS employees, not the least of which was the fact that IRS employees disclosed confidential information from IRS forms to the political enemies of the groups seeking tax-exempt status.

For example, Cindy Thomas, the Cincinnati unit manager for exempt organizations at the IRS, illegally released the tax applications of nine separate conservative organizations to the left-wing group ProPublica. The IRS claims that Thomas’ illegal release of private tax information was an “accident,” but the excuse is absurd.

Thomas wasn’t the only IRS employee leaking the tax information of conservative groups to their enemies. Pro-marriage groups found their confidential information in the hands of gay marriage advocacy organizations.

The FBI can start by finding out whether Thomas and her fellow IRS travelers in fact released the private information. If the FBI says Thomas cannot be prosecuted because she claims it was an accident, then Congress needs to step in and impose mandatory minimum prison sentences for any IRS employee that releases private information, accidental or not.

The bigger question the FBI must get to the bottom of is who hatched the policy of targeting Tea Party groups that led to these crimes? For that they should turn back to Robert Bauer.

THE MOTIVE

Robert Bauer had the motive to direct IRS policy against Tea Party groups. He is a longtime opponent of First Amendment freedoms and an advocate of government-speech regulation. He also can’t stand the work the Tea Party is conducting to monitor and eradicate voter fraud, work the Republican Party and national campaigns have utterly failed to perform.

During the 2008 election, while representing the Obama campaign, Bauer sent a threatening letter to the Justice Department demanding criminal investigations of people who had the audacity to speak about voter fraud. Bauer even singled out Sarah Palin in the letter. Anyone who “developed or disseminated” information about voter fraud, to Bauer, deserved the heavy boot of a criminal investigation. Read the letter; it reveals a nasty, thuggish, and lawless attitude toward political opposition.

To Bauer, those merely speaking about voter fraud were worthy of criminal investigation. Sound familiar?

Hindsight reveals why Bauer was so agitated. Two Obama campaign staffers, Amy Little and Yolanda Hippensteele, later pleaded guilty to voter fraud. We also know, courtesy of John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky, that a Minnesota election for U.S. Senate was decided by voter fraud in 2008. And who can forget Melowese Richardson, the Obama activist and poll official in Ohio who said on camera that she voted multiple times for President Obama in 2008? I could go on and on with multiple examples of voter fraud from 2008 where candidate Obama was the beneficiary.

No wonder Bauer was so anxious back in 2008 to shut everyone up.

Fast forward to 2012. Again, Mr. Bauer was up to his old tricks in his second stint as Obama campaign counsel, this time targeting Tea Party groups fighting for election integrity. Bauer and his campaign hench-lawyers called state election officials, seeking to unleash state criminal investigations of Tea Party groups working for election integrity. I have spoken with state election officials in at least three states which describe Obama campaign efforts to prompt state officials to target Tea Party groups.

I’m happy to share with the FBI special agents the names of those states if Mr. Bauer won’t.

Bauer even published this memo, specifically targeting True the Vote with outright lies so egregious he should be ashamed of himself.

After the Obama campaign voter fraud of 2008, in 2012 Bauer was anxious to remove election integrity groups from the polls as observers. If the IRS couldn’t slow the Tea Party watchdogs down, Bauer threatened them in other ways.

If the FBI special agents interview Mr. Bauer, it won’t be hard to conclude he had the motive to launch the Tea Party shakedown.

THE MEANS

President Obama’s campaign counsel certainly had the motive to target the Tea Party, but did Bauer have the means as campaign counsel? Remember, Bauer served as White House counsel from November 2009 to June 2011, right during the time this IRS shakedown was hatched.

Anybody who has worked in the White House will tell you that the White House counsel enjoys a position of power like few others. They can make things happen with a phone call. One former West Wing staffer told me that “any department’s staff who received directions from Bauer would think they were getting directions from the president. The White House counsel has the power to make policy with a phone call.”

Something important happened two months after Bauer became White House counsel – the Supreme Court decided Citizens United vs. FEC, a decision that caused the left to go batty. They feared the decision might cost them the White House. President Obama boorishly (and inaccurately) addressed the decision in the 2010 State of the Union.

The FBI special agents should ask Bauer some simple questions: With whom did you speak at the IRS about conservative and Tea Party groups post-Citizens United? Did you direct anyone on your staff to do the same? Did you hear about anyone speaking with the IRS about Tea Party groups? Who hatched the IRS harassment, which started on your watch? Did you meet with Doug Shulman any of the 157 times he visited the White House, and did you discuss exempt status of conservative groups?

THE OPPORTUNITY

The FBI agents might ask Bauer why a parade of Citizens United-obsessed speech-regulation zealots visited the West Wing just before the Tea Party shakedown went into effect.

Tova Wang, of the leftist Soros-funded group Demos, visited the White House and met with Bauer’s staff on June 2, 2010. In fact she hovered around the White House on multiple occasions during the critical time period the IRS policy was being crafted.

.
…………………..

.
Perhaps she was there for the Easter Egg roll. Perhaps not. Either way, the FBI can ask.

Notorious speech-regulation advocate Richard Hasen also visited the White House and met with White House Counsel Robert Bauer on June 24, 2010. (See this absurd screed at Slate saying the post-Citizens United world is “worse than Watergate.” Freedom just rubs some people the wrong way.)

Perhaps Hasen was at the White House with Bauer to watch the longest match in Wimbledon history which occurred that day.

Perhaps not, especially since he previously met with Nicholas Colvin in the White House Counsel’s office on June 21 and 23. Again, the FBI can find out if they ask.

Bauer or his staff met with a number of other ivory tower academics and activists interested in controlling free political speech through the spring of 2010. These also include the noisy reformer Meredith McGehee.

We don’t yet know who engineered the illegal, criminal, and disgusting IRS shakedown of Tea Party and conservative groups. But one thing is certain: Robert Bauer had the motive, the opportunity, and the means to do it. The good folks at the FBI are now busy preparing names of people to interview. They better not leave Mr. Bauer off the list, or his stream of visitors.

The parties better not coordinate stories ahead of time. These days, I hear the Justice Department has adopted an aggressive approach to email and phone records, at least for Fox News.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* White House Caught Lying About Obamacare Enrollment… Again


.
H/T The Right Scoop

.

A question for Democrats

Why would a president HIDE his agenda before an election?

This news from the Washington Post doesn’t come as any surprise. The White House delayed much of President Obama’s agenda until after the 2012 election. Heaven forbid they let the voters know what was really in store for them.

The White House systematically delayed enacting a series of rules on the environment, worker safety and health care to prevent them from becoming points of contention before the 2012 election, according to documents and interviews with current and former administration officials.

Some agency officials were instructed to hold off submitting proposals to the White House for up to a year to ensure that they would not be issued before voters went to the polls, the current and former officials said.

The delays meant that rules were postponed or never issued. The stalled regulations included crucial elements of the Affordable Care Act, what bodies of water deserved federal protection, pollution controls for industrial boilers and limits on dangerous silica exposure in the workplace.

What type of government hides its agenda from the people? Another question for Democrats, why are you still supporting this president?

 

Even Left-leaning reporters seeing Obama for what he is

In this case Jeremy Scahill

Via Daily Caller:

Left-wing journalist Jeremy Scahill appeared on the syndicated show “Democracy Now!” this Thursday to discuss the global “war on journalism,” claiming that “this White House seems to only want state media.”

Scahill spoke with left-leaning hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez about the global suppression of reporters in places far-flung such as Somalia and Mexico.

But although he was responding to the British government’s crackdown on The Guardian newspaper, Scahill reserved special ire for the Obama administration’s aggressive actions against reporters and the First Amendment.

“You have, on the one hand, President Obama saying that his administration is going to be the most transparent in history and that they want to be friends with the press,” he said. “And on the other hand, they are monitoring the metadata of journalists, they are seizing phone records, they are trying to compel journalists to testify against their sources, they are trying to figure out who journalists are talking to within government so that they can go and indict those people.” [...]

“Our profession, our trade is the only one specifically cited in the Constitution for a reason,” he said. “When all three branches of the government are colluding against the interests of the people, it’s the responsibility of journalists to hold them accountable. But this White House, like Bush’s before, they seem to want only state media. They want everything to look like MSNBC, and that’s not real journalism.”

Well, of course, Scahill had to take a shot at the Bush administration, but at least some on the Left are starting to open their eyes. The question is will they still side with Obama in the next two elections? Will there ever be a serious push by journalists to be well, journalists rather than water carriers for Team Obama? I never wanted the media to be “anti-Obama” I just want the media to be pro-reporting! Tell the truth!

 

Moonbat-produced video wins coveted ObamaCare Propaganda award

Via The Daily Caller

The Department of Health and Human Services has crowned a YouTube video entitled “Forget About The Price Tag” as the grand prize winner in a contest meant to encourage young people to sign up for Obamacare.

The video contest, announced in August — in partnership with a group called Young Invincibles — encouraged participants to produce clips filled with pro-Obamacare messaging.

HHS’s grand prize-winning video, announced Monday by the White House, features a young woman named Erin McDonald singing an Obamacare-loving version of Jessie J’s hit single, “Price Tag.”

Without a hint of irony, McDonald sings her chorus: “Ain’t about the, uh, cha-ching cha-ching. Ain’t about the, yeah, bla-bling bla-bling. Affordable Care Act. Don’t worry ’bout the price tag.”

Ah goodness, talk about transparency, this video shows, clearly, why no one with an IQ above 65 would support ObamaCare. The fool who did this video ignores the reality of the consequences associated with ObamaCare. Millions of people  who had health insurance, insurance they liked are being forced OFF those plans. And now face paying far more for plans they either do not like, or with much higher deductibles. The irony here is that the bill this buffoon celebrates forces people to do the very thing her song urges them not be worry about, the price tag!

Sure it is easy to say do not sweat the bill, unless you cannot pay it, in which case you will be fined by the IRS. It is east to say do not worry about the cost, but very hard to have to  choose between having much more costly health insurance and saving less money, or enjoying life less, or taking fewer vacations, or opening a small business. And again, this is being  forced onto people who HAD good insurance, and were forced, BY LAW, off those plans. It is damned easy to say, do not worry about the cost, unless you are forced to lose your doctor, or are no longer free to use the hospital you prefer. It is so very easy for this Nimrod to sing about forgetting about the cost. But what IS the real cost? The real cost is losing your control of your health care, losing your insurance, and then being forced onto a plan you do not want, one that costs more, and gives you no real choices. 

By the way, this walking brain donor won $2,000 for her video. I guess that is the going rate for useful idiots these days.

So when can we realistically expect that Obama Care website to work?

In only three more years, give or take apparently

Wait, did he say 2017?

“It may take until 2017. It will work really well then.”

– White House adviser David Plouffe, quoted by ABC News, on the implementation problems facing Obamacare.

Talk about setting low goals for the greatest legislation evah!

The Obama administration claimed victory Sunday for making HealthCare.gov workable for the vast majority of users, a standard that will be tested as millions of people flood the site in the next three weeks.

Sunday marked the passage of the administration’s self-imposed deadline for fixing the broken ObamaCare enrollment website, which serves consumers in 36 states.

The agency that oversees HealthCare.gov said “we believe we have met the goal” of making the system navigable for most people, but cautioned that more problems may lie ahead.

“Dramatic progress has been made,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) stated in a report released Sunday morning. “[But] there is more work to be done to continue to improve and enhance the website.”

The mixed message highlights the challenge facing the Obama administration as it seeks to ensure that millions can sign up for individual health plans online by the end of March.

Buffoons!

 

Another day, another Liberal Malady strikes!

Turns out Ed was posting about this at the same time I was. Great minds, great minds

In this case clearly Selective Memory Syndrome is the affliction

Via National Review:

Behind the scenes and nearly six months after the scandal first made headlines, the House Oversight Committee is quietly continuing its investigation of the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tea-party groups. Since May, congressional investigators have interviewed over 30 witnesses and examined thousands of pages of documents.

The latest official called to testify before committee investigators is an important one: IRS chief counsel William Wilkins. Wilkins is one of just two political appointees at the IRS, a generous donor to Democratic candidates and causes, and once represented Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Evidence of his involvement in the targeting would spell trouble for the White House and bring renewed focus to a scandal that has largely receded from public consciousness.

The Oversight Committee has furnished none, to date, but it is expressing gross dissatisfaction with Wilkins’s testimony and, in a letter sent to him on Wednesday, offering him the opportunity to amend it. “In your testimony, you stated ‘I don’t recall’ a staggering 80 times in full or partial response to the Committee’s questions,” committee chairman Darrell Issa and Ohio representative Jim Jordan wrote. “Your failure to recollect important aspects of the Committee’s investigation suggests either a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your involvement in this matter or gross incompetence on your part.”

How often have we asked of some member of Team Obama, “are they really that inept, or is this deliberate?” I think we all know that answer by now don’t we?

If Democrats think Obamacare is a PR disaster now, just wait

Wait till those employer provided plans start getting 86ed next year. Then the real caca hits the fan

One of the things you may have noticed in the past couple of weeks is that some liberal pundits are claiming that ObamaCare is essentially a public relations problem: The program is just wonderful, but there have been some P.R. problems with the rollout.

Democrats need to learn that denial is not the name of a river in Egypt:

Democratic leaders claim the bungled launch of Obamacare is just the latest news sensation — a media-stirred tempest that looks in the heat of the moment like it could upend the midterm election, but ends up fizzling well before voters head to the polls.
Some party strategists say they’re in denial.

And that perceived gap between party spin and facts on the ground is fueling worries that the White House and Democratic higher-ups aren’t taking the possible electoral blowback seriously enough or doing enough to shield their candidates. Democratic contenders in the toughest races are distinctly less convinced that Obamacare will fade as an election-year issue — and they can’t afford to just cross their fingers that things get ironed out or that Republicans revert to political hara-kiri.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at a forum hosted by BuzzFeed recently that the rollout won’t “hurt us in 2014,” adding that “we’re proud” of the law. Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a recent appearance on CNN, went so far as to assert that Obamacare would be “an advantage” for Democratic candidates next year.

“Democrats will run on the Affordable Care Act and win,” she has also told reporters.

The White House, meanwhile, has come across as equally dismissive of Obamacare’s consequences for 2014.

And the worst news of all came out today in a CNN Poll

And speaking of complete meltdown . . .

We are starting to see a broad polling trend for Barack Obama, and it should have the White House worried — but maybe Obama’s fellow Democrats in Congress even more.  The latest CNN poll confirms what the Washington Post/ABC poll first noticed, and what the CBS poll corroborated — Obama’s approval decline involves more than just his performance.  The Americans public is souring on Obama as a person and as a brand, and that spells real trouble for his agenda . . . .

President Obama will not be on the ballot in 2014 or 2016, but the American people will be angry with him, and guess who else? His fellow Democrats, and likely any nominee the Democrats put forward in 2016. They will take the losses, and then the only question is will the GOP use enough common sense to reap the electoral benefits?

 

So now “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” is an incorrect promise is it?

How morally retarded is the Left? The Other McCain lets us know

Orwellian euphemism from the New York Times:

The split between lawmakers and the White House reflects the dilemma the president finds himself in as he seeks to follow through on last week’s acknowledgment about his incorrect promise on health care coverage.

Good freaking grief! How far removed from our senses are we? Why is anyone making excuses for Obama’s BALD-FACED LIE? He LIED, and many Democrats lied with him. This was not a broken promise, it was a lie, PERIOD! And it was a lie told, and repeated to pass a bill these miscreants KNEW would force most American’s off the insurance they chose, and onto plans the government mandates! How tough is it to connect the dots here? If the government can tell you you MUST buy a product, in this case health insurance, then they can tell you what type of health coverage you MUST have. Honestly who did not see this coming?

Maybe more to the point, why would anyone defend, excuse, or spin this? Because those defending this un-American abomination actually think the government should do whatever it takes to reach the desired end, in this case, socialized medicine. Those defending this do not love liberty, they detest it! They care about the “common good”, they are Marxists! They are fine with deceit because they like the end game, so the means do not matter. It is all about the Collective as Donald Douglas notes

This is literally painful, from Jonathan Cohn, at the New Republic, “Bill Clinton Is Wrong. This Is How Obamacare Works” (via Memeorandum):

The Affordable Care Act includes a so-called grandfather clause. That allows insurers to keep renewing plans, without changes or benefits and prices, as long as they were available before March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law. But the non-group market is volatile: Very few people stay on plans for more than two years anyway. And the grandfather clause is narrow, by design: If insurers made even modest changes, the protection goes away. Those plans are subject to the new regulations that take effect in January. As a result, the majority of people who buy insurance on their own are learning they can’t have what they had before, even though Obama promised everybody they could. Either their premiums are going up, as insurers accommodate the new regulations, or the plans are disappearing altogether. In those cases, people have to find new plans. And the sticker price of what they’ll find is higher than what they pay now.

This is not a glitch or an accident. This is the way health care reform is supposed to work. And it’s important to put these changes into context. For one thing, it’s a small number of people relative to the population as a whole. The vast majority of Americans get coverage through employers or a large government program like Medicare. These changes don’t really affect them. The law also anticipates these changes by, among other things, offering tax credits that discount the premiums—in many cases, by thousands of dollars. (Other provisions of the law, like a limit on insurance company profits and overhead, should restrain prices more.) As a result, many people buying coverage on their own will be paying less money for benefits that are as good, if not better, than what they have now.

But there are real people who must pay more and, in some cases, put up with less. Some of them are people walking around with junk insurance, the kind are practically worthless because they pay out so little. Some of them are young people, particularly young men, whom insurers have coveted and wooed with absurdly low premiums—and make too much money to qualify for substantial subsidies. And some of them are reasonably affluent, healthy people with generous, open-ended policies that are hard to find even through employers. Insurers kept selling them because they could restrict enrollment to healthy people. Absent that ability, insurers are canceling them or raising premiums so high only the truly rich can pay for them.

Those people are the ones everybody is hearing about now, partly because they are a compelling, sometimes well-connected group—and partly because, absent a well-functioning website, stories of people benefitting from the law’s changes aren’t competing for attention. It’s impossible to know how big this group is. The data on existing coverage just isn’t that good. The anecdotes are frequently, although not always, more complicated than they seem at first blush. It’s probably one to two percent of the population, which doesn’t sound like much—except that, in a country of 300 million, that’s 3 to 6 million people. Most experts I trust think they represent a minority of people buying coverage on their own, but nobody can say with certainty.

Is that a worthwhile tradeoff for reform? Obviously that’s a matter of opinion. The fact that some people—even a small, relatively affluent group—are giving up something they had makes their plight (genuinely) more sympathetic. They are right to feel burned, since Obama did not make clear his promise might not apply to them. And there’s a principled argument about whether people should be responsible for services they’re unlikely to use presently, whether it’s fifty-something year olds paying for maternity care or twenty-something year olds paying for cardiac stress tests.

Read the whole thing. Utterly astounding.

This is what the president meant by “fundamental” change folks. He is willing to destroy private health insurance to get what he, and his fellow Marxists have long dreamed of, universal health care, which, according to a man I met today at the airport, is a great thing, until you make the mistake of getting sick. And speaking of getting sick, it seems that more Democrats are getting sick of their electoral chances next year

House Democrats delivered a fix-it-or-else ultimatum Wednesday to President Obama, giving his administration until Friday to find an affordable solution for the millions of Americans losing their health plans under ObamaCare — or risk some Democrats backing a Republican solution. 

The ultimatum from President Obama’s own party is another sign of the unrest within the Democratic caucus about the cancellation notices. The end-of-the-week deadline is significant, because House Republicans are planning to call a vote Friday on a bill that would extend current policies for another year. 

It’s unclear whether Democrats would go so far as to support that bill if the administration does not offer a Plan B. But one senior Democratic source told Fox News that, at a closed meeting Wednesday, Democrats made clear to the administration that they need a proposed fix before Friday’s vote. 

The White House has vowed to come up with a solution, but so far has not provided much detail on what such a solution would entail. Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president will make an announcement on possible options “sooner rather than later.” 

One senior House Democrat characterized the meeting Wednesday as “heated.” The source said the session consisted of “members telling the administration that they screwed it up and now we have to explain it to the public.” 

Another source said that it helps for the administration to hear frank talk “from their friends that they need to get back in front of the problem.” 

“No more excuses, just get it done,” the source said. 

Of course, if these same Democrats had listened to their constituents three years ago, we would not be in this mess would we? Frankly, every Democrat who voted for Obamacare deserves to get thrown out of office over this.

President Obama has no shame

Donald Douglas links a great piece on our president’s Truth Deficit Disorder

At the San Diego Union-Tribune, “President Obama’s obnoxious bait-and-switch“:

The last time we had a Democratic president who wanted to overhaul the entire U.S. health care system, his measure never even got out of a single congressional committee.

Why? Because Bill Clinton had no compelling response to an insurance-industry ad campaign in which “Harry and Louise” talked about the president’s proposal and the likelihood it would force them to lose their current health coverage and choose from a handful of government-approved options.

The ad campaign was so potent because it understood that most Americans are satisfied with their health coverage — and thus fear change.

The blowback Democrats faced because of the Clinton health initiative led to a Republican takeover of the House in November 1994 for the first time in nearly a half-century.

Barack Obama knew this history. So when he became president in January 2009 and began his push for a similarly ambitious overhaul of U.S. health care, he told people over and over that if they liked their health plan, they could keep it. There were no caveats. No strings attached. If you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.

It’s quite possible that the president said this so many times that he came to believe it. But it is a matter of fact that three months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, the Obama administration issued rules that will force the cancellation of vast numbers of policies. This is from the administration’s own words in the Federal Register: “The Departments’ midrange estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013.”

So three years and four months ago, the Obama administration anticipated that some 90 million Americans would be forced to change their coverage. Yet as recently as last month, the president once again said, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”

This is White House dishonesty on an epic scale…

Indeed it is, but that is the leftist way, and President Obama is an ideologue, Clinton was a politician. And, the Democrats in 2010 were dead set on shoving this law down our throats. Those famed harry and Louise ads would not have helped in 2010. No amount of public outcry against Obamacare worked. No polls showing the people did not want Obamacare worked either. The Left saw an opportunity, and took it. That is the problem with Democrats today isn’t it? They have moved so far Left that they are no longer even Liberals, they are Leftists.

 

Your Blog Quote of the Day; It is a Mobius Loop of Bullshit.

That comes from The Other McCain and describes the strategy of Team Obama to avoid talking about the failure to end all failures, Obamacare

You know what this reminds me of? President Clinton claiming that the Lewinsky scandal was distracting him from “doing the work the American people sent me here to do,” as if sodomizing interns was not a distraction.The Wall Street Journal:

Problems with the government’s health-care website are forcing President Barack Obama to redraw his plans for the rest of the year as he looks for ways to regain political momentum.
Scrapping a planned push to drive people to the balky website, the White House is organizing a flurry of events on the economy and immigration, as well as health care, a senior administration official said. . . .
The president’s senior aides had at one time planned for him to be holding events aimed at encouraging Americans to shop for insurance on the new federal health-care website, with stops in places with high numbers of uninsured people.But the problems plaguing the site have forced them to shift strategies.

It’s amazing how the media cooperates in these administration propaganda campaigns: “Senior aides” tell reporters what the White House message strategy is and the reporters then help push the White House message. Then the media report the story of how successful the White House message strategy was — as if they were covering something other than their own coverage. It’s a Mobius loop of bullshit.

So, here Obama goes again, back into campaign mode. Leadership? HA! How about he admit he KNEW that tens of millions would lose their health insurance and lied anyway? How about he look into the camera and, for once, for once put the country? How about he delay not only the individual mandate, but the entire Obamacare fiasco? If he was a man of any integrity, or honor, or gave a damn about this nation or the people, he would admit Obamacare will not work, and join Congress in repealing and replacing the horrible piece of legislation. Of course, I am silly for even suggesting such things I guess. After all, the sad truth is that the failings of Obamacare, and the millions who will lose their insurance are EXACTLY what Dear Leader wanted. See all of this is just another part of that fundamental change Obama the candidate vowed to bring.

 

Better check your mail boxes kids

The Lonely Conservative has great news about what just might be coming soon

I received my “Obamacare enrollment packet” from the White House.

 It contained:
· An aspirin and a band-aid.
· An ‘Obama Hope & Change’ bumper sticker
· A ‘Bush’s Fault’ yard sign
· A ‘Blame Republicans first, then anybody and everybody’ poster
· A ‘Tax the Rich’ banner
· An application for unemployment and a free cellphone
· An application for food stamps
· A prayer rug
· A letter assigning my debt to my grandchildren
· And lastly, a coupon for a machine that blows smoke up my ass. 
Everything was made in ” China ” and all directions were in Spanish…