Cancer Patient / Obamacare Victim That Democrat Congressman Tried To Silence Speaks Out

Cancer Victim Silenced By Rep. Gary Peters Speaks Out – Washington Free Beacon – Washington Free Beacon

Julie Boonstra, a cancer patient who was kicked of off her health plan due to Obamacare, lashed out at Rep. Gary Peters (D., Mich.) on Saturday after lawyers for his campaign demanded that Michigan broadcasters cease airing ads featuring her story.

.

.
Boonstra, a Michigan resident, was diagnosed with leukemia five years ago. She was recently kicked off of her healthcare plan due to regulations passed as part of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Peters voted in favor of.

After relating her story publicly in an ad produced by the advocacy group Americans for Prosperity (AFP), Peters dispatched lawyers to prevent the spot from running on local television stations.

.

.
Boonstra, who says she is now struggling to pay out of pocket for her rising healthcare costs, told the Washington Free Beacon she is stunned by Peters’ efforts to censor her story.

“I’m appalled. I’m appalled as a mom, as a woman, and as a cancer patient, as someone living with cancer… who has stood before this nation to say, ‘I cannot afford that out of pocket expense,’” said Boonstra, who said she was given a 20 percent chance of surviving her disease. “As a Michigan resident, to silence my voice, I’m absolutely appalled.”

Peters, who is running for a seat in the Senate, instructed his legal council earlier this week to demand that stations stop running the AFP ad until additional evidence of the cancer victim’s claims could be produced.

“For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should immediately require AFP to provide the factual documentation for its claims if you are going to continue airing this advertising,” read the letter from Peters’ lawyers.

The letter went on to question Boonstra’s motives and the facts presented in AFP’s ad.

Boonstra said she is “surprised” by what she described as the Peters campaign’s strong-arm tactics.

“I’m very surprised,” Boonstra said just hours after she attempted to confront Peter face-to-face at his Bloomfield Hills residence. “I have every right to tell my story and express my point of view and opinion on how Obamacare has affected me.”

Boonstra attempted to confront the congressman at his door, but he did not answer when she knocked.

“I just went up to his house and knocked on his door,” Boonstra recalled. “I would like to meet with him, but he did not answer. I know someone was home, so I left a letter there for him.”

Boonstra wrote in her letter, “I don’t understand why you’re trying to silence my voice. I have every right to speak out and don’t understand why you’re doing this.”

A spokesman for the Peters campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

“The fact that Representative Peters would sic his legal team on a Michigan mother battling cancer to muzzle her tells you everything you need to know about his record of putting politics over people,” AFP-Michigan State Director Scott Hagerstrom said in a statement.

“This attack on her credibility is disgusting, unwarranted, and inexcusable,” Hagerstrom said. “Congressman Peters and his indecent campaign team should be ashamed of themselves.”

Asked what she would say to Obama were she given the chance, Boonstra responded: “This law has not benefited him. I know there are some people out there who wanted to believe that. I have not seen the benefits so far.”

“This [law] is hurting me,” she continued. “I thought the intention was to help and it’s not. I’m angry [Obama] lied to me. He told me I could keep my healthcare plan and that was very untrue. I just want it to be clear that I have every right to tell my story.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Leftist Nightmare Update: Drug Rationing For Seniors Begins

Drug Rationing For Seniors Begins – American Spectator

.

.
Buried beneath the avalanche of recent news reports about the latest Obamacare-mandated funding cuts to the Medicare Advantage (MA) program is a related but far more disturbing story – the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken a major step toward rationing medications to the elderly. Since passage of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, seniors enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug program have been guaranteed access to “all or substantially all” of the drugs in several classes of pharmaceuticals. President Obama’s health care bureaucrats, however, have proposed removing three of these classes from the “protected” list.

The New York Times reports, “The administration’s proposal would remove the protected status from… immunosuppressant drugs used in transplant patients, antidepressants and antipsychotic medicines.” Yes, you read that correctly. These are drugs used to facilitate organ transplants and treat patients suffering with mental illness. The Times names a few of the medicines in question: “They include many well-known drugs, such as Wellbutrin, Paxil and Prozac to treat depression, and Abilify and Seroquel to treat schizophrenia.” There can be little doubt that the next step CMS plans to take will involve a decision not to cover the most expensive of these medications at all.

This is why CMS represents this as a cost-saving measure. But the amount of money these changes will save is virtually nothing by Medicare standards. Moreover, as Yevgeny Feyman writes in Forbes, “The likely reduction in therapeutic choices could result in higher health care costs in other parts of the program, like Part A (for hospital care) or Part B (for physician services).” Further undermining the CMS cost-saving claim is that, due to the very market features that make it unpopular with Beltway bureaucrats, the Medicare prescription drug program may be the only federal entitlement in history whose costs have come in below its initial CBO projections.

Nonetheless, the Obama administration didn’t lose its affinity for health care rationing when Donald Berwick was forced out of CMS. Rationing is as much about control as it is about money. And this is where the nexus between the CMS drug proposal and Obamacare’s MA cuts can be found. Medicare’s prescription drug benefits are administered only through Medicare Advantage, and the President as well as his bureaucratic accomplices have been gunning for MA since Obama’s brief pit stop in the Senate. MA introduced private competition and patient choice into Medicare. That cannot be tolerated. Medicare must be wholly returned to their fiscally inept control.

Predictably, the CMS proposal has produced bipartisan protests. As the Times further reports, “Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee warned that the proposal could ‘diminish access to needed medication’ without saving much money.” On February 19, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp and Senate Finance ranking member Orrin Hatch wrote to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner thus: “As authors of Medicare’s successful prescription drug program… We are strongly opposed to this proposed regulation.”

The following day, the CMS head received another protest letter from a surprisingly diverse coalition of more than 200 groups, including the AIDS Alliance, the National Kidney Foundation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, the Lupus Foundation of America, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, the United Way, various hospitals, physician associations, insurance companies and pharmacy chains. The letter warns Tavenner that the rule makes “unnecessary changes to programs that are already extraordinarily effective” and that it “will impede beneficiaries’ access to affordable health plans and medicines.”

Even some left-leaning media outlets are uncomfortable with the Obama administration’s rationing policy. In the Huffington Post, Professor Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, recently pointed out that the CMS rule “will not only fail to rein in Medicare’s long-term spending growth, but will inflict severe and unnecessary harm on our nation’s poor and elderly who are suffering from serious physical and behavioral illnesses.” Thorpe makes much the same point as does Feyman: “Restricting access to the medicines patients need to manage depression, avoid organ transplant rejection, and treat psychosis will drive healthcare utilization in far more costly ways.”

It’s a little disorienting to find such an objective view in a publication that normally repeats Obama administration talking points verbatim, but there it is. Presumably, this departure from partisanship is an indication of just how far CMS has over-reached this time. Most Americans regard health care rationing as repugnant and unnecessary, and we look on it with even less favor when it is imposed on the elderly. As Professor Thorpe writes, “That’s a betrayal of Medicare’s promise of access to care for our most vulnerable, older Americans.” Well said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Mash-Up: Barack Obama’s Weekly Address – The Minimum Wage


.

Thanks Barack… U.S. Electricity Production Declines As Price Index Soars To New Record

Electricity Price Index Soars To New Record At Start Of 2014; U.S. Electricity Production Declining – CNS

.

.
The electricity price index soared to a new high in January 2014 with the largest month-to-month increase in almost four years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Meanwhile, data from the Energy Information Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Energy, indicates that electricity production in the United States has declined since 2007, when it hit its all-time peak.

The U.S. is producing less electricity than it did seven years ago for a population that has added more than 14 million people.

“The electricity index rose 1.8 percent, its largest increase since March 2010,” said BLS in its summary of the Consumer Price Index released Thursday.

.

.
In December, the seasonally adjusted electricity index was 203.740. In January, it climbed to a new high of 207.362.

Back in January 2013, the electricity price index stood at 198.679. It thus climbed about 4.4 percent over the course of a year.

Last month, the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity in a U.S. city also hit an all-time January high of 13.4 cents, according to BLS. That marks the first time the average price for a KWH has ever exceeded 13 cents in the month of January, when the price of electricity is normally lower than in the summer months.

.

.
A year ago, in January 2013, a KWH cost 12.9 cents. The increase in the price of a KWH from January 2013 to January 2014 was about 3.9 percent.

During the year, the price of a KWH of electricity usually rises in the spring, peaks in summer, declines in fall, and is at its lowest point in winter. In 2013, the average price of a KWH in each of the 12 months of the year set a record for that particular month. January 2014’s price of 13.4 cents per KWH set a new record for January.

.

.
Historically, in the United States, rising electricity prices have not been inevitable. In the first decades after World War II, the U.S. rapidly increased it electricity production, including on a per capita basis. Since 2007, the U.S. has decreased its electricity production, including on a per capita basis.

In the 1950s and 1960s, when U.S. electricity generation was increasing at a rapid pace, the seasonally adjusted U.S. electricity price index remained relatively stable. In January 1959, the electricity index stood at 29.2, according to BLS. A decade later, in January 1969, it was 30.2—an increase of 3.4 percent over a 10-year span.

That 3.4-percent increase in the index from January 1959 to January 1969 was less than the 4.4 percent the index increased from January 2013 to January 2014.

Over the last seven years, according to the EIA, the U.S. has actually decreased its total net electricity generation, although not in an unbroken downward line from year to year (generation did increase from 2009 to 2010 before going down again in 2011 and 2012).

The EIA has published historical data going back to 1949 on the nation’s annual total net electricity generation, which EIA measures in million kilowatthours.

.

.
In 1949, according to EIA, the U.S. produced 296,124.289 million KWH of electricity. By 1959, it produced 713,378.831 – an increase of 417,254.542 million KWH or about 141 percent.

In 1969, the U.S. produced 1,445,458.056 million KWH – an increase of 732,079.225 or about 103 percent from 1959.

In 1979, the U.S. produced 2,250,665.025 million KWH – an increase of 805,206.969 or about 55.7 percent from 1969.

In 1989, the U.S. produced 2,967,146.087 million KWH – an increase of 716,481.062 or about 31.8 percent from 1979.

In 1999, the U.S. produced 3,694,809.810 million KWH – an increase of 727,663.723 or about 24.5 percent from 1989.

In 2009, the U.S. produced 3,950,330.927 million KWH – an increase of 255,521.117 or about 6.9 percent.

In 2007, according to EIA, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,156,744.724 million KWH of electricity, which, so far, is the historical peak. In 2012, the last year for which full data is available, the U.S. generated a net total of 4,047,765.26 million KWH. That represents a drop of 108,979.464 million KWH – or about 2.6 percent – in the nation’s electricity production since 2007.

CNSNews.com divided the million KWH of electricity generated each year in the United States, according to EIA, by the number of people in the U.S. population as of July of that year (as estimated by the Census Bureau) to derive a number for per capita electricity production (see chart).

As with overall electricity production, per capita production exhibited decelerating growth over the decades, peaked in 2007, and has since declined.

From 1950 to 1959, per capita total electricity generation (in million KWH) grew by 83.11 percent; from 1960 to 1969, it grew by 69.76 percent; from 1970 to 1979, it grew by 33.51 percent; from 1980 to 1989, it grew by 19.25 percent; from 1990 to 1999, it grew by 11.25 percent.

From 2000 to 2009, per capita total net electricity generation in the United States declined by 4.45 percent.

In 2007, when U.S. electricity generation peaked at 4,156,744.724 million KWH, per capita production also peaked at 0.013799 million KWH for each of the 301,231,207 people in the country as of July of that year.

In 2012, the U.S. generated 4,047,765.26 million KWH for a population of 313,914,040—for a per capita production of 0.012895. That means per capita electricity production in the U.S. declined by about 6.6 percent in five years.

The downward trend in U.S. electricity production continued into 2013. The EIA’s latest Monthly Energy Review, which includes data through October 2013, indicates that in the first ten months of 2013, the U.S. generated a total of 3,392,101 million KWH of electricity, down from the 3,407,155 million KWH produced in the first 10 months of 2012.

The Monthly Energy Review also indicates that a large part of the decline in U.S. electricity generation has come from a decrease in the electricity produced by coal – which has not been replaced by a commensurate increase in the electricity produced by natural gas or the “renewable” sources of wind and solar.

In 2007, the year U.S. electricity generation peaked at 4,156,745 million KWH, coal accounted for 2,016,456 million KWH of that production – or 48.5 percent of it. Natural gas, then the nation’s second largest generator of electricity, accounted for 896,590 million KWH of total production – or about 21.6 percent.

In 2007, wind generated 34,450 million KWH – or about 0.8 percent of the nation’s supply that year. Solar generated 612 million KWH – or about 0.0147 percent of the national supply.

By 2012, when U.S. electricity generation had dropped to 4,047,765 million KWH, coal generated only 1,514,043 million KWH – or 37.4 percent of the national supply.

Between 2007 and 2012, the nation’s annual coal-fired electricity generation declined by about 25 percent, or 502,413 million KWH. The combined increases in natural gas, wind and solar did not make up for this decline. In 2012, natural gas produced 1,225,894 million KWH, up 329,304 million KWH from 2007; wind produced 140,822, up 106,372 million KWH from 2007; and solar produced 4,327 million KWH, up 3,715 million KWH from 2007.

The combined 439,391 million KWH increase in electricity generation from natural gas, wind and solar did not cover the 502,413 million KWH decline in the electricity generated by coal.

Coal was not the only source that produced less electricity in 2012 than in 2007, according to the EIA data.

Electricity from nuclear power plants dropped from 806,425 million KWH in 2007 to 769,331 in 2012 – a decline of 37,094 million KWH or 4.6 percent.

Electricity generated from petroleum sources dropped from 65,739 million KWH in 2007 to 23,190 million KWH in 2012—a decline of 42,549 million KWH or about 64.7 percent.

Conventional hydroelectric means of generating electricity hit their peak in 1997, a decade before overall electricity generation peaked in the United States. In that year, the U.S. produced 385,946 million KWH of electricity through conventional hydroelectric power. By 2012, that had dropped to 276,240 million KWH, a decline of 109,706 million KWH or 28.4 percent.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ted Cruz And Other Republican Senators Call FBI On Carpet Over D’Souza Charges

Senators Call FBI On Carpet Over D’Souza Charges – WorldNetDaily

.

.
An investigation into conservative author and “2016: Obama’s America” filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza that resulted in his indictment on campaign contribution charges is rebounding on the FBI, with demands from Congress now to know how the investigation was triggered – and other details.

Four members, including Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, all Republicans, have written to the FBI with a list of questions for the agency to answer.

The indictment was seen in many quarters as political payback for D’Souza’s film, which was harshly critical of Obama during the 2012 election season, and there has been launched by WND an online petition demanding that Congress halt what gives the appearance of political retaliation.

WND has reported that D’Souza has vowed to present a strong defense to the allegations.

The letter from the senators, addressed to FBI Director James Comey Jr., noted that based on what is known so far, the investigation into D’Souza came following a “routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC of various candidates after the 2012 election.”

The senators explain, “The articles, however, did not provide any details regarding the scope and methodology of these routine reviews. Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz has said, ‘I can’t help but think that [D’Souza’s] politics have something to do with it… It smacks of selective prosecution.’ To dispel this sort of public perception that Mr. D’Souza may have been targeted because of his outspoken criticisms of the president, it is important for the FBI to be transparent regarding the precise origin of this investigation.”

The senators listed the questions that the FBI should answer, including “It appears from U.S. attorney’s office comment that the FBI conducts regular, perhaps random reviews of campaign filings. Is this correct? If so, what methodology does the FBI use to conduct these reviews?”

The senators also ask, “Please identify and describe all methods by which a review of campaign filings may be initiated,” and “Please identify all other government entities involved in the FBI’s review of campaign filings and describe their involvement.”

No. 4 is, “How and why was this particular review initiated?”

No. 5 is, “What criteria involved in this particular review led to the suspicion that warranted further inquiry?”

No. 6 is, “What are the guidelines under which the FBI conducts its reviews of Campaign filings?”

No. 7 is, “Please describe how the FBI’s reviews of campaign filings are conducted.”

No. 8 is, “How many campaign filings has the FBI reviewed in each year from 2008 to the present?”

No. 9 is, “On average, how long does it take to complete a review of a campaign filing?”

No. 10 is, “How many agents are assigned, per case, to review campaign filings?”

No. 11 is, “On average, how many man hours are spent reviewing campaign filings?”

No. 12 is, “When did the FBI begin routinely reviewing campaign filings.”

The letter to Comey continued, “During your confirmation hearing, you pledged that you would carry the values of transparency and try to spread them as far as you could within the FBI. To explain the details of these routine reviews and provide context to those who may be skeptical of the origins of this investigation, please provide answers…”

They all were critical of Obama, and suddenly were being contacted by the Internal Revenue Service, or others.

The petition addressed to Congress seeks “an immediate halt to the Obama administration’s reign of ‘payback’ and ‘punishment’ levied against its political opponents, which it regards as ‘enemies’; and a congressional investigation into the administration’s unmistakable and undeniable pattern of political use of the fearsome machinery of government to punish critics and opponents – which is not only grossly illegal and immoral, but profoundly destructive of everything that makes America exceptional and free.”

WND previously reported that Gerald Molen, the producer of D’Souza’s two full-length feature film documentaries, “2016: Obama’s America,” released in 2012, and the about-to-be-released “America,” had characterized D’Souza’s criminal indictment as a Soviet-style “political prosecution.”

“When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie, every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’” he said.

D’Souza told WND that Molen, too, was harassed by the Obama administration for his role producing D’Souza’s full-length feature film documentaries.

“Right after ’2016′ came out, Molen got a call from the IRS,” D’Souza said.

“I just think it’s interesting the searchlight fell on him so randomly, so to speak, and so quickly right after. Molen has been around for a long time. He’s made ‘Minority Report’ and ‘Jurassic Park’ and for all this time he escaped scrutiny from the IRS, but then suddenly in a sense, the moment he comes out of the closet as a conservative, boom – ‘Hello, this is your friendly IRS agent calling,’” he said.

D’Souza argued he was prosecuted because his first feature film offended Obama personally, not just because the film represented a political challenge to Obama’s presidential re-election hopes in 2012.

“When ’2016′ came out, I was carefully monitoring what kind of effect if any this would have on Obama, and I don’t just mean on the Obama campaign, I mean on the president himself,” he said. “And for a while, there was dead silence from the Obama campaign. They said nothing about the film. And, in fact, the major media networks followed and acted as if the film didn’t even exist, even though the film was in just about every major theater chain in America.”

.

.
In fact, it ranks as among the most popular documentaries ever.

Then D’Souza noticed “2016″ was attacked on the Obama campaign website, BarackObama.com.

“You can see it is a very intemperate and almost demented attack on the film. Some of the things that it charges about the film aren’t even in the film, although they do appear in my published works. You can see that the film ’2016′ did kind of unhinge Obama. And I think part of the reason for that is that the film wasn’t just a critique of his policies, it delved into his psyche. It kind of got in a way under his skin, I don’t mean by just annoying him, I mean by getting into what are the underlying traumatic factors that have driven him into becoming the kind of man that he is.”

D’Souza told WND the harassment from the Obama administration began when he was filming “2016″ in Africa.

“When we were down in Kenya and we were in the grandmother’s compound and we were observing the homestead and the grave, Obama’s sister got wind – she’s in Nairobi – and she got wind that we were there,” he said. “And she immediately called the cops and she called the local chieftains to basically run us out of town. And we had to literally grab our stuff and flee. And we were worried at that time that we would either be apprehended or equally significant that they would confiscate our film.”

D’Souza disclosed the film crew established emergency measures to make sure their film footage got out of Kenya should D’Souza and the film crew be detained in the country, or in case the Kenyan government made an attempt to otherwise confiscate the film footage.

“So my point is, it’s very clear with the Obama family that these people take this stuff very seriously and they try to run interception where they can,” he stressed. “Now, they did not succeed in blocking ’2016,’ and the film in fact made a big stir in 2012 after being released.”

D’Souza told WND his lawyers have a hearing with the federal court in New York to determine when his case will be tried, but he expects the case will go to trial with a 12-member jury, possibly beginning before the scheduled July 4 opening of “America” across the nation.

“Launching a defense in the federal criminal indictment has been every expensive,” D’Souza admitted.

“I won’t deny that it is traumatic. You have to take it seriously because they are looking to lock you up. So you can’t be frivolous about. At the same time, I want to be clear this is not something that has knocked me out for the count. I’m not someone to give in easily on this kind of a thing. I’m determined to continue to speak my mind and do my work.”

He explained that “America” was written in part to answer the question, “What is unique about America?”

Answering that question took D’Souza on a historical examination of America’s key conflicts, leading back to the challenges that faced our Founding Fathers.

He explained: “I think that the remarkable thing about our debate today is that the left and the right agree there is something unique about America, but the conservatives believe that America in some ways is uniquely good and the progressives led by Obama think that America is uniquely bad – in other words, that American history has been characterized by a unique set of crimes and offenses, that American capitalism is uniquely materialistic and selfish, that American foreign policy is uniquely devoted to plunder. So, we wanted to take on this argument head-on in the film and answer it at the root level.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama’s Cousin: Barack Is “The Worst President In Our Lifetimes, If Not In Our History”

Obama’s Cousin: He’s ‘Worst President In History’ – WorldNetDaily

.

.
Dr. Milton Wolf has a problem with a member of his family: He says his second cousin, Barack Obama, may just be “the worst president in history.”

Now the doctor is on a mission to win a seat in the U.S. Senate and undo some of the damage caused by his kin.

His goal? Repeal Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare, and replace it with a system based on conservative principles.

Wolf, 42, is a diagnostic radiologist who runs to the right of incumbent Republican Sen. Pat Roberts in the Kansas GOP primary. He admits he didn’t know he was related to Obama until 2008 and didn’t meet him until they were health-care policy adversaries in 2010. Wolf said being related to a president would be a great experience if Obama weren’t so far left in his ideology.

“Of course, who wouldn’t be honored to have a president in your family and sit on the front row of history? We’re related,” he said. “Of course, I remind people you cannot choose your family. Barack Obama is the worst president in our lifetimes, if not in our history. He has been a disaster. It’s nothing personal, but his policies have been disastrous in America.

“It’s mostly because he either doesn’t understand or has forgotten what America is all about. The American idea itself is about individual liberty, limited government and free-market values,” he said. “When we have embraced those, we have become the most prosperous and powerful nation in history. And when we abandon those, we suffer. We have suffered under Barack Obama.”

Wolf is making no secret he would be a fierce opponent of President Obama in Washington. The home page of his campaign website reads, “Want to drive Barack Obama crazy? Send his very own fearless conservative cousin – ‘the next Ted Cruz’ – to the United States Senate!”

.

.
Wolf says he touts himself as the next Ted Cruz because he believes the freshman Texas senator is approaching his office the right way while Sen. Roberts is not.

“We need more senators like Ted Cruz, like Mike Lee, like Rand Paul. They stand by the Constitution fearlessly, unapologetically. They don’t need an election year conversion because they’re the real deal,” Wolf said.

“Pat Roberts, in an amazing election-year conversion, is following the leadership of Ted Cruz, who’s only been there for one year,” he said. “That’s because Ted Cruz understands something that Pat Roberts has never quite figured out – that a United States senator should have something more powerful than just a vote. He should have a voice, and he should use that voice. He should stand up and fight for our Constitution and for the American idea itself.

Wolf continued, “Instead, what we have in our establishment Republicans are these go-along-to-get-along Republicans. Pat Roberts voted for Barack Obama’s $600 million tax increase just a year ago. He’s voted to raise our debt ceiling 11 times. And Pat Roberts voted to put Kathleen Sebelius in charge of Obamacare. That’s not conservative. It’s not good for Kansas, and it’s not good for America.”

Defenders of Roberts counter Wolf’s arguments by asserting Roberts spent many years of his Senate tenure in key intelligence committee positions that were not conducive to bold public statements. They also note he was one of only 18 Republicans to oppose the spending bill that ended last year’s partial government shutdown and that he was the first U.S. senator to publicly call for the resignation of Sebelius.

“He only bothered to say Kathleen Sebelius should resign three days after I announced my candidacy. The Kansas City Star reported on it and said, ‘If you think those two facts are unrelated, you probably think the Kansas Jayhawks are going to win the national championship this year in football,’” said Wolf, who added that voters need to take a close look at Roberts’ voting record throughout his Senate tenure and not just leading up to elections.

“He claims to be in the top five conservatives in the Senate. That’s according to Heritage Action. What he doesn’t want you to know is his lifetime score from Heritage Action, which is a 67. Before I came along, in 2012 Pat Roberts had a 65 from Heritage Action. Before I came along, in 2012 Pat Roberts had a 55 from Club for Growth and a 54 from FreedomWorks. That is not a conservative. That is somebody who is going along to get along, and that’s been the problem with our Republican Party,” he said.

So what qualifies Wolf for the Senate, and what would his priorities be if elected?

“I confess I don’t have the Washington experience Pat Roberts has. I’ve never voted to raise your taxes,” he said. “I’ve never spent trillions of dollars that aren’t mine, and I’ve never paid $800 for a toilet seat. But what I have done is this: I have met payroll. I have balanced budgets. I have run a company and, far more importantly, I know every day what it’s like to have patients come to me and put their lives in my hands and ask me to make the humbling, sometimes gut-wrenching decisions that are the difference between life and death. That’s the kind of humility I think Washington lacks.”

His top legislative priority is PatientCare, his plan to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a system based on conservative principles.

“We need to fully repeal Obamacare, and we need to replace it with patient-centered, free-market health-care reform that’s being described as, by far, the best alternative to Obamacare,” he said.

Wolf is not only running against a three-term incumbent, but the state’s other senator, Jerry Moran, runs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC. That’s the group tasked with re-electing Republican senators and recruiting candidates to run for Democrat-held seats.

Wolf said Kansas is in no danger of falling to the Democrats, so the NRSC should stay out of the primary. He says if it doesn’t, it will show the group is not about electing conservatives but simply protecting incumbents.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Only Under Holder (Robert Delahunty & John Yoo)

Only Under Holder – Robert Delahunty & John Yoo

.

.
Chalk up yet one more legal fiasco to Attorney General Eric Holder. Apart from failing to enforce Obamacare, immigration, and the drug laws, the administration continues to endanger national security with its catch-and-release approach to terrorists. In a preview of the consequences of its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, the Obama Justice department (DOJ) is starting to apprehend terrorists abroad and free them at home.

The story begins with the 2011 arrest of Ali Mohamed Ali, who took part in the pirate attack on a Danish vessel, the CEC Future, off the northern coast of Somalia three years earlier. Ali acted as a translator for the pirates and communicated their demands to the vessel’s owner, Clipper Group. After two months of holding the ship and its crew of 13 captive, the pirates eventually released them in exchange for a ransom of $1.7 million. The ransom payment was dropped onto the vessel by helicopter. As part of its efforts to suppress piracy, including the stationing of a naval task force off East Africa, the United States eventually captured Ali.

For centuries, international law has considered pirates to be the ultimate war criminals and “enemies of all mankind.” As a crime of “universal jurisdiction,” piracy can be punished by any nation. But there is no requirement that it be tried in the civilian courts. Piracy is inherently a warlike enterprise, and in its present form off the Somali coast it has reached higher levels of violence than some wars do. In 2008, the year in which the CEC Future was taken captive, pirates seized 49 ships and held nearly 900 crew members for ransom worldwide. Somali pirates were responsible for 111 attacks that year. Although the incidence of Somali piracy has dropped since peaking in 2011, it is still a serious menace.

But this administration, trapped by the ideology of its anti-war base, had no idea what to do with Ali. The Obama administration refuses to send any new detainees to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because it cannot bring itself to admit agreement with Bush-era anti-terrorism policies. Instead, it prefers to kill terrorist leaders (and nearby civilians) with drone strikes rather than capturing them to gain intelligence. As a result, the Obama administration has failed to capture a single high-ranking terrorist leader in five years, and the most valuable pool of information – human intelligence – is drying up.

Out of options, Holder began the sad comedy of errors by bringing Ali back to the United States. Consistent with Holder’s preferred policy of trying suspected terrorists in ordinary civil courts inside the United States, rather than before military commissions, federal prosecutors put Ali on trial in a federal district court in Washington, D.C. The most important charge against him was piracy, which on conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. Lesser charges included hostage taking.

Prosecutors compounded Holder’s basic mistake by failing last November to persuade the jury to convict Ali. Obama’s DOJ then brought its bungling to new heights by deciding to drop the remaining charges against Ali. Having gotten a read on the men across the table, Ali has called the administration and now raised it – by applying for permanent asylum in the United States. The chances are excellent that Ali will remain inside the United States for a prolonged stay or even the rest of his life.

This is not the first time that Holder’s DOJ has sought to try such cases in ordinary civil courts inside the country, rather than at Guantanamo Bay, where military commissions for trying terrorists are available. Earlier in the Obama administration, Holder sought a civil criminal trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other suspects involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. But Holder had no answer to questions about what would happen if a jury failed to convict these al-Qaeda suspects. He said merely, “I would not have authorized the prosecution of these cases unless I was confident that our outcome would be a successful one.”

In other words, Holder acknowledged that he had no Plan B. But despite Holder’s presumptuousness, federal prosecutors cannot control jury deliberations or predict their outcomes with certainty. Once a case has gone to the jury, it is for the jurors alone to decide whether to find that the accused has been proven guilty or not.

The public blowback against trying terrorists inside the United States was intense and bipartisan, and the White House retreated from Holder’s plan under fire. But this administration is not one to admit to or learn from its mistakes. In the Ali case, Holder and his subordinates took the risk that they might not succeed in convincing a jury that Ali was himself a pirate because he had provided translation services to a pirate gang. Their gamble backfired when the jury reported its verdict.

What happened makes plain the original wisdom behind military commissions. From the Revolution to World War II, American commanders convened these special military courts to try the enemy for war crimes. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt ordered the use of commissions as part of their responsibility to punish enemy transgressions and to encourage compliance with the rules of civilized warfare. They combine speedy proceedings unencumbered by the years of delay in the peacetime justice system with judges and juries drawn from the officer corps who are specialists in the laws of war. In a WWII decision, Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld FDR’s choice of military commission to try German spies captured on a sabotage mission within the United States, even though at least one of the defendants may have been born in the country.

But committed to its base’s dislike of Bush anti-terrorism policies, the Obama administration has forsworn the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and trial by military tribunals. Instead, Holder may have assumed that even if Ali were not convicted, he could be deported from the country as an illegal alien. But our immigration laws permit aliens inside the United States to apply for asylum – even if they have been brought into the country to stand trial. Ali has taken advantage of that opportunity. In all likelihood, his asylum application will take months, if not years, to process. And in the end, he may even prevail. Other terrorists will take note: Even if their plots in the U.S. fail, they can always try their luck with a jury trial and then file for citizenship.

There is no need for our government to create a public danger of this kind. We should not have to worry about the presence of suspected pirates or terrorists in our midst. The correct course in a case like this would have been to try Ali outside the United States, before a military commission. But the broader problem still remains: President Obama is intent on returning terrorism to our domestic law enforcement and civilian courts for resolution because he believes that – all information to the contrary – the tide of war is receding. Grappling with the metamorphosis of the terrorist into a less intense, more decentralized enemy, however, is no excuse to bring terrorists back home for release.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

How Long Until Democrats Demonize Leukemia Patient Julie Boonstra For Excoriating ObamaCare? (Video)

How Long Until Democrats Demonize Leukemia Patient Julie Boonstra For Excoriating ObamaCare? – American Power

Ms. Boonstra is featured in this ad from Americans for Prosperity, via the Weekly Standard, “Ad: Obamacare ‘Jeopardized My Health’.

.

.
Remember, when cancer survivor Edie Sundby took to the Wall Street Journal in November to slam ObamaCare after her insurance was cancelled, the devilish ghouls of the radical left, led by the despicable monsters at the Soros-backed White House mouthpiece Think Progress, viciously attacked her like wolves on an injured rabbit.

How long until the monstrous left goes after this woman, who is literally fighting to survive after the ObamaCare monstrosity eviscerated her existing healthcare coverage? Never forget: There’s no depths to which leftists won’t sink to demonize and destroy those who would dare resist their evil agenda.

More thoughts from Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, “Democrats stuck in stage 3 of ObamaCare grief?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

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

Related article:

.
Man’s Back Surgery On Hold As Doctors Deny Covered California (Obamacare) Coverage – KOVR

A Sonora mechanic is in so much pain that he can barely walk, but he can’t seem to find a doctor to fix his ailing back after he and his wife switched their insurance coverage through Covered California.

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
Chris Dunn reached out to CBS13 hoping we could get answers.

He needs his surgery yesterday. But instead of scheduling his date, he and his wife are navigating a confusing maze of doctors and insurance plans.

“Then it goes down, my feet are numb, like I can do this, and I can’t feel it at all,” he said.

His ailing back has him in almost constant agonizing pain. He walks with a limp and hasn’t had a good night’s sleep in months.

“I can’t sleep on my back,” he said. “I roll around all night, because I can’t lay flat. I can’t lay anywhere for more than five, 10 minutes.”

He’s still working, despite the pain. But finding a surgeon to fix his back has turned into a full-time job of its own.

“We get this coverage and go to the best doctor to fix Chris, and they tell us we’re out of network,” said his wife Tammy.

In January, they transitioned from an Anthem Blue Cross Plan over to Blue Cross Covered California (Obamacare). She says they had to switch to avoid the premium skyrocketing, but didn’t realize their provider network would be smaller.

We took their concerns to Covered California’s Dana Howard to get answers.

“A lot of people, this is the first time they’re purchasing insurance,” he said.

For privacy reasons, he couldn’t comment on the specific case, but said in general that consumers should do their research before purchasing plans.

“I would suggest they contact the plan to make sure what doctors are available to them,” he said.

Tammy says she finally found an in-network doctor, but the problems don’t end there. We looked him up using the couple’s plan info, and the Blue Cross website shows him as in-network.

But that same doctor’s officer told Tammy he won’t see patients with insurance from Covered California.

“It’s like we’re a second-class citizen,” she said. “We can’t get the coverage we need.”

For Chris, it’s another stop in a long road to the surgery he needs.

“To this point where it feels like I’m going to be in pain,” he said. “I can’t find nobody to do it.”

CBS13 wasn’t able to reach the doctor tonight, and a late-hour contact with Blue Cross didn’t get to the bottom of it, so we’re still pushing for answers.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Leftist Corruption Update: Obama Regime Placing Government Monitors In Newsrooms

Obama Regime Placing Government Monitors In Newsrooms – Tammy Bruce

.
………….

.
Stalin would be proud. And of course the irony here is if you Google this issue you’ll see lots of blog coverage but only a couple of mainstream media organizations are reporting on the fact that the Fed is sending people into newsrooms to pressure them into certain types of news coverage. You see, Obama’s Gestapos have decided they know what news you need to hear. This is just a tad strange considering most newsrooms are already in Obama’s pocket. But give Dear Leader and inch and he’ll take a mile…

Via ACLJ.

The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.

The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of “critical information” “that it believes local newscasters should cover.”

That’s right, the Obama Administration has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions.

And what has Obamas gestapos decided are the Critical Information Needs? From their “study” report:

.

.
And this at The Blaze from Jay Sekulow:

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, a conservative legal group, worries it could be used to intimidate certain news organizations into covering issues that government officials feel are important.

“This is an extremely troubling and dangerous development that represents the latest in an ongoing assault on the Constitution by the Obama Administration,” Sekulow said in a statement. “We have seen a corrupt IRS unleashed on conservatives. We have seen an imperial president bypass Congress and change the law with executive orders.”

The FCC only has jurisdiction over the broadcast industry, and not over cable news or print publications. So networks, local stations as well as most radio stations would be subject to the evaluation.

“Now we see the heavy hand of the Obama administration poised to interfere with the First Amendment rights of journalists,” Sekulow continued. “It’s clear that the Obama administration is only interested in utilizing intimidation tactics – at the expense of Americans and the Constitution. The federal government has no place attempting to control the media, using the unconstitutional actions of repressive regimes to squelch free speech.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Leftist Nightmare Update: Fourth Georgia Hospital Closes Due To Obamacare Payment Cuts

Fourth Georgia Hospital Closes Due To Obamacare Payment Cuts – Daily Caller

The fourth Georgia hospital in two years is closing its doors due to severe financial difficulties caused by Obamacare’s payment cuts for emergency services.

.
………….

.
The Lower Oconee Community Hospital is, for now, a critical access hospital in southeastern Georgia that holds 25 beds. The hospital is suffering from serious cash-flow problems, largely due to the area’s 23 percent uninsured population, and hopes to reopen as “some kind of urgent care center,” CEO Karen O’Neal said.

Many hospitals in the 25 states that rejected the Medicaid expansion are facing similar financial problems. Liberal administration ally Think Progress has already faulted Georgia for not expanding Medicaid as Obamacare envisioned.

But the reality is more complicated. The federal government has historically made payments to hospitals to cover the cost of uninsured patients seeking free medical care in emergency rooms, as federal law mandates that hospitals must care for all patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Because the Affordable Care Act’s authors believed they’d forced all states to implement the Medicaid expansion, Obamacare vastly cut hospital payments, the Associated Press reports.

The Supreme Court ruled that states could reject the Medicaid expansion in 2012, as part of the decision that upheld Obamacare generally. Since that decision, the Obama administration has so far instituted 28 unilateral delays and changes to the health care law’s implementation without congressional approval, Fox Business reports.

From verifying eligibility for subsidies to enforcing employer requirements, the Obama administration has already taken a hacksaw to the health care reform law, but it has made no changes to the provision raising problems for half the nation’s hospitals.

While the feds wait for financial pressure to force states to act, several state governments have been taking things into their own hands. Some have criticized these moves as “hospital bailouts.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Here’s A Presidential Address You’ll Never Hear Barack Obama Deliver

Here’s The Best Presidential Speech You’ve Never Heard – The Blaze

Below is Democrat President Grover Cleveland’s Second Inaugural Address dated Sunday, March 4, 1893.

Its themes are timeless, and the speech is representative of a man who was perhaps the last principled classical liberal to ever occupy the Oval Office.

All emphasis is ours.

.

.
My Fellow-Citizens:

In obedience of the mandate of my countrymen I am about to dedicate myself to their service under the sanction of a solemn oath. Deeply moved by the expression of confidence and personal attachment which has called me to this service, I am sure my gratitude can make no better return than the pledge I now give before God and these witnesses of unreserved and complete devotion to the interests and welfare of those who have honored me.

I deem it fitting on this occasion, while indicating the opinion I hold concerning public questions of present importance, to also briefly refer to the existence of certain conditions and tendencies among our people which seem to menace the integrity and usefulness of their Government.

While every American citizen must contemplate with the utmost pride and enthusiasm the growth and expansion of our country, the sufficiency of our institutions to stand against the rudest shocks of violence, the wonderful thrift and enterprise of our people, and the demonstrated superiority of our free government, it behooves us to constantly watch for every symptom of insidious infirmity that threatens our national vigor.

The strong man who in the confidence of sturdy health courts the sternest activities of life and rejoices in the hardihood of constant labor may still have lurking near his vitals the unheeded disease that dooms him to sudden collapse.

It can not be doubted that our stupendous achievements as a people and our country’s robust strength have given rise to heedlessness of those laws governing our national health which we can no more evade than human life can escape the laws of God and nature.

Manifestly nothing is more vital to our supremacy as a nation and to the beneficent purposes of our Government than a sound and stable currency. Its exposure to degradation should at once arouse to activity the most enlightened statesmanship, and the danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and conservative precaution.

In dealing with our present embarrassing situation as related to this subject we will be wise if we temper our confidence and faith in our national strength and resources with the frank concession that even these will not permit us to defy with impunity the inexorable laws of finance and trade. At the same time, in our efforts to adjust differences of opinion we should be free from intolerance or passion, and our judgments should be unmoved by alluring phrases and unvexed by selfish interests.

I am confident that such an approach to the subject will result in prudent and effective remedial legislation. In the meantime, so far as the executive branch of the Government can intervene, none of the powers with which it is invested will be withheld when their exercise is deemed necessary to maintain our national credit or avert financial disaster.

Closely related to the exaggerated confidence in our country’s greatness which tends to a disregard of the rules of national safety, another danger confronts us not less serious. I refer to the prevalence of a popular disposition to expect from the operation of the Government especial and direct individual advantages.

The verdict of our voters which condemned the injustice of maintaining protection for protection’s sake enjoins upon the people’s servants the duty of exposing and destroying the brood of kindred evils which are the unwholesome progeny of paternalism. This is the bane of republican institutions and the constant peril of our government by the people. It degrades to the purposes of wily craft the plan of rule our fathers established and bequeathed to us as an object of our love and veneration. It perverts the patriotic sentiments of our countrymen and tempts them to pitiful calculation of the sordid gain to be derived from their Government’s maintenance. It undermines the self-reliance of our people and substitutes in its place dependence upon governmental favoritism. It stifles the spirit of true Americanism and stupefies every ennobling trait of American citizenship.

The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their Government its functions do not include the support of the people.

The acceptance of this principle leads to a refusal of bounties and subsidies, which burden the labor and thrift of a portion of our citizens to aid ill-advised or languishing enterprises in which they have no concern. It leads also to a challenge of wild and reckless pension expenditure, which overleaps the bounds of grateful recognition of patriotic service and prostitutes to vicious uses the people’s prompt and generous impulse to aid those disabled in their country’s defense.

Every thoughtful American must realize the importance of checking at its beginning any tendency in public or private station to regard frugality and economy as virtues which we may safely outgrow. The toleration of this idea results in the waste of the people’s money by their chosen servants and encourages prodigality and extravagance in the home life of our countrymen.

Under our scheme of government the waste of public money is a crime against the citizen, and the contempt of our people for economy and frugality in their personal affairs deplorably saps the strength and sturdiness of our national character.

It is a plain dictate of honesty and good government that public expenditures should be limited by public necessity, and that this should be measured by the rules of strict economy; and it is equally clear that frugality among the people is the best guaranty of a contented and strong support of free institutions.

One mode of the misappropriation of public funds is avoided when appointments to office, instead of being the rewards of partisan activity, are awarded to those whose efficiency promises a fair return of work for the compensation paid to them. To secure the fitness and competency of appointees to office and remove from political action the demoralizing madness for spoils, civil- service reform has found a place in our public policy and laws. The benefits already gained through this instrumentality and the further usefulness it promises entitle it to the hearty support and encouragement of all who desire to see our public service well performed or who hope for the elevation of political sentiment and the purification of political methods.

The existence of immense aggregations of kindred enterprises and combinations of business interests formed for the purpose of limiting production and fixing prices is inconsistent with the fair field which ought to be open to every independent activity. Legitimate strife in business should not be superseded by an enforced concession to the demands of combinations that have the power to destroy, nor should the people to be served lose the benefit of cheapness which usually results from wholesome competition. These aggregations and combinations frequently constitute conspiracies against the interests of the people, and in all their phases they are unnatural and opposed to our American sense of fairness. To the extent that they can be reached and restrained by Federal power the General Government should relieve our citizens from their interference and exactions.

Loyalty to the principles upon which our Government rests positively demands that the equality before the law which it guarantees to every citizen should be justly and in good faith conceded in all parts of the land. The enjoyment of this right follows the badge of citizenship wherever found, and, unimpaired by race or color, it appeals for recognition to American manliness and fairness.

Our relations with the Indians located within our border impose upon us responsibilities we can not escape. Humanity and consistency require us to treat them with forbearance and in our dealings with them to honestly and considerately regard their rights and interests. Every effort should be made to lead them, through the paths of civilization and education, to self- supporting and independent citizenship. In the meantime, as the nation’s wards, they should be promptly defended against the cupidity of designing men and shielded from every influence or temptation that retards their advancement.

The people of the United States have decreed that on this day the control of their Government in its legislative and executive branches shall be given to a political party pledged in the most positive terms to the accomplishment of tariff reform. They have thus determined in favor of a more just and equitable system of Federal taxation. The agents they have chosen to carry out their purposes are bound by their promises not less than by the command of their masters to devote themselves unremittingly to this service.

While there should be no surrender of principle, our task must be undertaken wisely and without heedless vindictiveness. Our mission is not punishment, but the rectification of wrong. If in lifting burdens from the daily life of our people we reduce inordinate and unequal advantages too long enjoyed, this is but a necessary incident of our return to right and justice. If we exact from unwilling minds acquiescence in the theory of an honest distribution of the fund of the governmental beneficence treasured up for all, we but insist upon a principle which underlies our free institutions. When we tear aside the delusions and misconceptions which have blinded our countrymen to their condition under vicious tariff laws, we but show them how far they have been led away from the paths of contentment and prosperity. When we proclaim that the necessity for revenue to support the Government furnishes the only justification for taxing the people, we announce a truth so plain that its denial would seem to indicate the extent to which judgment may be influenced by familiarity with perversions of the taxing power. And when we seek to reinstate the self-confidence and business enterprise of our citizens by discrediting an abject dependence upon governmental favor, we strive to stimulate those elements of American character which support the hope of American achievement.

Anxiety for the redemption of the pledges which my party has made and solicitude for the complete justification of the trust the people have reposed in us constrain me to remind those with whom I am to cooperate that we can succeed in doing the work which has been especially set before us only by the most sincere, harmonious, and disinterested effort. Even if insuperable obstacles and opposition prevent the consummation of our task, we shall hardly be excused; and if failure can be traced to our fault or neglect we may be sure the people will hold us to a swift and exacting accountability.

The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States not only impressively defines the great responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional commands as the rule by which my official conduct must be guided. I shall to the best of my ability and within my sphere of duty preserve the Constitution by loyally protecting every grant of Federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when attacked by impatience and restlessness, and by enforcing its limitations and reservations in favor of the States and the people.

Fully impressed with the gravity of the duties that confront me and mindful of my weakness, I should be appalled if it were my lot to bear unaided the responsibilities which await me. I am, however, saved from discouragement when I remember that I shall have the support and the counsel and cooperation of wise and patriotic men who will stand at my side in Cabinet places or will represent the people in their legislative halls.

I find also much comfort in remembering that my countrymen are just and generous and in the assurance that they will not condemn those who by sincere devotion to their service deserve their forbearance and approval.

Above all, I know there is a Supreme Being who rules the affairs of men and whose goodness and mercy have always followed the American people, and I know He will not turn from us now if we humbly and reverently seek His powerful aid.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

House Republicans Create ‘Benghazi File Repository’ Website

House Republicans Create “Benghazi File Repository” Website – DCX

.

.
House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled their new “Investigation of Benghazi” website which appears to be a Benghazi file repository of committee reports and other declassified publications related to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Diplomat Sean Smith.

In a couple of brief paragraphs the website explains that the mission of the House Republicans is to discover what occurred on that night in Benghazi and to uncover exactly what the Obama administration is attempting to cover up:

Shortly after the attack, House Republicans asked the Obama administration to explain to the American people the Administration’s actions leading up to and during the attack itself, as well as the fact that publicly-available information consistently contradicted Administration accounts describing the cause and nature of the attack. Our fight for answers and justice continues today.

For over a year now, House Committees have engaged in serious, deliberate, and exhaustive oversight investigations of what led up to this tragic event, what happened that night, and why the White House still refuses to tell the whole truth. All of the unclassified information and findings from this ongoing investigation can be found on this website.

This page continues to be updated as more information becomes available. The most recent update was made on January 29, 2014.

One of the most interesting sections of the new repository is titled House Committee on Foreign Affairs and includes the following files:

Hearing Transcripts
* “Benghazi: Where is the State Department Accountability?” September 18, 2013
* “Terrorist Attack in Benghazi: The Secretary of State’s View,” January 23, 2013
* “Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board,” December 20, 2012
* “Benghazi and Beyond: What Went Wrong on September 11, 2012 and How to Prevent it from Happening at other Frontline Posts, Part I,” November 15, 2012

1/28/13 Clinton-State
* Outgoing: 04.15.13 – State Dept, Sec. of State, Royce Chaffetz Issa
* Outgoing: 2013-01-28-DEI-Royce-Chaffetz-to-Clinton-State-ARB-due-2-11

1/31/13 ARB Recommendations
* Incoming: 03.29.13 – State Dept, RE Issa Royce Chaffetz to Clinton-State
* Outgoing: 01.31.13 – State Dept, Sec. Clinton – ARB recommendations

4/23/13 Interim Report 5 Cmte Letter
* Outgoing: 04.23.13 – POTUS, Five Committee letter re Benghazi

5/15/13 Talking Points
* Incoming: 05.20.13 – State Dept, Gibbons, RE DEI & Royce Benghazi-related emails
* Outgoing: 05.15.13 – State Dept, Sec. Kerry, DEI & Royce – Benghazi talking points due 5-20

05/27/13 OIG Continued Concerns
* Incoming: 05.10.13 – OIG, Dep. IG Harold Geisel, Under review RE Continued concerns with ARB report
* Outgoing: 05.10.13 – OIG, Dep. IG Harold Geisel, Continued concerns with ARB report
* Outgoing: 09.27.13 – OIG, Dep IG Geisel, Questions on OIG ARB Review

05/29/13 Status of ARB-Cited Employees
* Incoming: 08.23.13 – State Dept, RE. Status of ARB-cited employees
* Outgoing: 05.29.13 – State Dept, Sec. Kerry, Status of ARB-cited employees

10/30/13 Benghazi Annex Response
* Incoming: 10.30.13 – DOD, Hagel, RE. Benghazi Annex response
* Incoming: 11.12.13 – State, Kerry, RE. Benghazi Annex response
* Incoming: 12.11.13 – CIA, RE. Benghazi Annex response
* Outgoing: 2013-10-30 DEI & Royce to Brennan-CIA – Benghazi Annex response
* Outgoing: 2013-10-30 DEI & Royce to Hagel-DOD – Benghazi Annex response
* Outgoing: 2013-10-30 DEI & Royce to Kerry-DOS – Benghazi Annex respons

10/30/13 Rewards for Justice Program
* Incoming: 11.15.13 – State Dept, Kerry, RE. Benghazi Rewards for Justice
* Outgoing: 10.30.13 – State Dept, Kerry, Benghazi Rewards for Justice

11/19/13 Benghazi Four Employment Status Update
* Incoming: 01.17.14 -State Dept, RE. Benghazi Four Employment Status Update
* Outgoing: 11.19.13 – State Dept, Kerry, Beghazi Four Employment Status Update
* Outgoing: 12.13.13 – State, Follow-up on status ARB-cited employees

The list of other available reports is quite extensive but many of them are heavily redacted. The page should prove to be a valuable resource for anyone investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

John Kerry, Slow Learner (John Hinderaker)

John Kerry, Slow Learner – John Hinderaker

.
…………

.
We are ganging up on John Kerry this morning. Here’s the thing–Kerry has a number of problems, but the most basic is that he isn’t very bright. He doesn’t have a high enough IQ for difficult work. As a senator, he hid his incapacity by ignoring virtually all of his job duties. As Secretary of State, his ineptitude – one might say shocking ineptitude, if this were not the Obama administration–is being exposed.

Earlier today in Jakarta, having finished bloviating about global warming, Kerry complained that Syria’s Bashar Assad has been “stonewalling” in the Geneva peace talks:

Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday accused Syrian President Bashar Assad of stonewalling in peace talks and called on Russia to push its ally to negotiate with opposition leaders.

“Right now, Bashar Assad has not engaged in the discussions along the promised and required standard that both Russia spoke up for and the regime spoke up for,” Kerry said during a press conference in Jakarta.

Of course he is stonewalling, you fool! He is winning.

He said the Syrian leader’s team “refused to open up one moment of discussion” of a transitional government to replace Assad’s regime. “It is very clear that Bashar Assad is trying to win this on the battlefield instead of coming to the negotiating table in good faith,” Kerry added.

Really? That’s very clear, is it? Good Lord, what a chump! Remember when Kerry promised that any military effort against Assad would be “incredibly small”? That struck fear into Assad’s heart, no doubt; and even that “incredibly small” possibility was taken off the board when Kerry started mumbling out loud about chemical weapons. Why would Assad do anything other than “try to win on the battlefield,” let alone agree to a “transitional government to replace [his] regime”? Earth to Kerry: that’s what you do when you’re losing on the battlefield.

Russia has told the U.S. it was committed to helping create a transitional government, Kerry said, but has not delivered “the kind of effort to create the kind of dynamic by which that could be achieved.”

Peace talks last week in Geneva ended with no progress toward breaking the impasse in the nearly 3-year-old conflict in Syria.

So Putin lied! Another shocker. Apparently he wasn’t impressed by that “reset” button. Paul told us everything we need to know about the failure of the Geneva talks yesterday:

The farcical Syrian peace talks have apparently come to an end. The talks were never going to produce peace unless Russia pressured Assad into giving up or sharing power. And Russia was never going to pressure Assad into giving up or sharing power because he is Russia’s ally and is winning the civil war. Indeed, Russia recently blocked a U.N. resolution to bring aid to desperate Syrian civilians.

The Obama administration is miffed, once again, at reality. A senior official whined that Russia “can’t have it both ways” – it can’t say it wants peace and a happy Olympics while it is “part and parcel of supporting this regime as it kills people in the most brutal way.”

Actually, though, Russia is having it both ways, and can have it as many ways as it wants as long as the hapless Obama administration is in the picture.

I am starting to understand why so many liberals are isolationists. If your foreign policy is going to be this bad, isolationism might well be a better alternative: a variant on the medical injunction, “First, do no harm.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Verbally Bitchslaps Obama Over Dictatorial Behavior


.

Five Years Later: 1,268 Proven Cases Of “Stimulus” Fraud

Five Years After Stimulus: 1,268 Cases Of Fraud – Gateway Pundit

In November 2010, Vice President Joe Biden said fraud and abuse of the stimulus bill had been kept “to a surprisingly low level.” This came a year after Barack Obama bestowed VP Joe Biden with the title of the stimulus “Sheriff.”

.

.
Fast forward five years – Investigators have proven 1,268 cases of fraud in the $840 billion stimulus program.

Nice job, Sheriff.

USA Today reported:

Despite thousands of fraud cases, the financial losses under the 2009 Recovery Act have been just a fraction of what the government expected.

Five years after President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, investigators have proven 1,268 cases of fraud in the $840 billion stimulus program, resulting in $57 million in recovered funds.

Still, the amount of fraud discovered so far is far less than what investigators said they expected when Congress passed the stimulus package.

“We have not seen the level of fraud that I think many people feared,” said Kathleen Tighe, the chairwoman of the board. The board, created by the Recovery Act, is charged with monitoring all the money spent in the stimulus and disaster relief funds from Superstorm Sandy. She credited unprecedented transparency, aggressive prosecutions and an emphasis on fraud prevention.

Vice President Joe Biden will visit the St. Louis region this week on the fifth anniversary of the failed Obama Stimulus program. Don’t expect him to talk about all of the fraud in the failed Keynesian experiment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Yet Another Deadly Obamacare Lie

Remember Obama Saying People With Pre-Existing Conditions Shouldn’t Pay More? Yeah, Well… – Independent Journal Review

Along with Barack Obama’s promise of “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan,” was his declaration that “people with pre-existing conditions shouldn’t be penalized.”

.
…..

.
Yeah, well, that was then and this is now. People with serious pre-existing diseases, precisely those Obama said the “Affordable Care Act” would help, could find themselves paying for expensive drug treatments with no help from the healthcare exchanges.

Those with expensive diseases such as lupus or multiple sclerosis face something called a “closed drug formulary.” Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute explains:

“If the medicine that you need isn’t on that list, it’s not covered at all. You have to pay completely out of pocket to get that medicine, and the money you spend doesn’t count against your deductible, and it doesn’t count against your out of pocket limits, so you’re basically on your own.”

But didn’t Obama pledge – multiple times – to help those with pre-existing conditions, a: get covered, and, b: control their cost of healthcare? Here’s the reality, according to Dr. Daniel Kantor, who treats MS patients and others with neurological conditions:

“So it could be that a MS patient could be expected to pay $62,000 just for one medication. That’s a possibility under the new ObamaCare going on right now.”

Moreover, Dr. Kantor worries that “this may drive more patients” to not buy their medicines, “which we know is dangerous,” he says. “We know MS can be a bad disease when you’re not treating it. When you’re treating it, for most people they handle it pretty well, but we know when you don’t treat (it), it’s the kind of disease where people end up in wheel chairs potentially.”

And so it continues. What began with the botched rollout of a website, continued with millions of health insurance cancellation notices, and will undoubtedly face a year when the other shoe continues to drop, we are in the midst of doing exactly what Nancy Pelosi infamously said before the bill became law: we are “finding out what’s in it” – and we don’t like it.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

One In Five Obamacare Enrollees Never Paid First Premium; 83% Of Current Enrollees Are Subsidized

Disaster: One In Five Obamacare Enrollees Never Paid First Premium; 83% Of Current Enrollees Are Subsidized – Gateway Pundit

What a disaster.

One in five Obamacare enrollees did not pay their first month’s premium, meaning they weren’t actually enrolled.

.

.
The Wire reported:

About one in five Obamacare enrollees never paid their first month premium, meaning they weren’t actually insured in January, The New York Times reports. Insurance providers across the country say anywhere from 70 to 95 percent of customers managed to pay their premiums by extended, mid-January deadlines. But in some cases, 25 to 30 percent of would-be enrollees – enrollees the government has been counting in its enrollment numbers – missed even extended deadlines.

This comes just two days after the Obama administration reached its first monthly enrollment target in January, signing up 1.146 million individuals when they expected 1.059 million. The administration has said it doesn’t know how many people have paid since they haven’t finished building the back end of the exchange (the part that pays insurers). But if, across the board, 20 percent of people haven’t paid their premiums, then January enrollments would be under 1 million.

It gets worse – According to The Lund Report, the CBO predict 5 out of 6 million exchange enrollees (or about 83%) in 2014 will receive a federal subsidy. That means only 17% are actually paying for their own plans without the help of Sugar Daddy government.

And, then there’s this… One-quarter of new enrollees are ages 18 to 34, below the 40 percent threshold the administration at first said was necessary to keep premiums steady. Moreover, 55 percent of enrollees are women, who are generally more expensive to insure than men, mostly because of maternity care.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Within Hours Of FOIA Request For Bin Laden Death Pictures, Admiral McRaven Ordered Them Destroyed

Judicial Watch: Top Pentagon Leader Ordered Destruction Of Bin Laden Death Photos – Washongton Free Beacon

Judicial Watch announced Monday that it received documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing that Admiral William McRaven ordered the immediate destruction of any photos of Osama bin Laden’s death within hours of a Judicial Watch FOIA request.

.

.
According to the Pentagon documents, McRaven sent his email on “Friday, May 13, 2011 5:09 PM.” The documents do not detail what documents, if any, were destroyed in response to the McRaven directive. The Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit seeking the documents was filed in the United States Court for the District of Columbia only hours earlier. Judicial Watch also announced the filing at a morning press conference. […]

The move by McRaven to purge the photos appears to have come, at least in part, in response to aggressive efforts by Judicial Watch to obtain images of the deceased bin Laden that President Obama, in a rewrite of federal open records law, had refused to disclose. In addition to its May 2, 2011, FOIA request with the Pentagon Judicial Watch filed an identical request on May 3, 2011, with the CIA. When neither the Defense Department nor the CIA complied with the FOIA requests, Judicial Watch, in June 2011, filed FOIA lawsuits against both agencies. In the course of the litigation, the Pentagon claimed that it had “no records responsive to plaintiff’s request.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Conservative Senators Cruz and Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act

Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee Introduce State Marriage Defense Act – Gateway Pundit

Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee introduced legislation today that would allow states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage.

.

.
Breitbart reported:

On Thursday, U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act, which allows states to set their own standards as to what defines marriage and protects the states from having the federal government encroach on that territory.

Thirty-three states define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Cruz stated:

I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for [their] residents.

Lee echoed:

How a state should define marriage should be left up to the citizens of each state. It is clear the Obama administration finds the principles of federalism inconvenient in its effort to force states to redefine the institution of marriage. The State Marriage Defense Act provides an important protection for states, respecting the right to choose for themselves how each will treat the institution of marriage under the law.

Meanwhile… A federal judge struck down Virginia’s ban on gay marriage on Thursday.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

New Navy Map Shows U.S. Had ‘Multitude Of Forces’ Near Libya During Benghazi Attack

Benghazi-Gate: New Navy Map Shows U.S. Had ‘Multitude Of Forces’ In Region Surrounding Libya During Benghazi Attack – Clash Daily

.

.
The U.S. military had a multitude of forces in the region surrounding Libya when terrorists attacked the Special Mission in Benghazi and murdered four Americans, according to an unclassified Navy map obtained by Judicial Watch this week.

The map features the Navy fleet positions in the North Africa Area of Responsibility (AOR) on September 11, 2012, the day Islamic jihadists raided the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the first diplomat to be killed overseas in decades, and three other Americans were murdered in the violent ambush.

Dozens of vessels were stationed in the region on that day, including two aircraft carriers (Dwight D. Eisenhower and Enterprise), four amphibious ships, 13 destroyers, three cruisers and more than a dozen other smaller Navy boats as well as a command ship. Carriers are warships, the powerhouse of the naval fleet with a full-length flight deck for aircraft operations. During the Benghazi attack, two carriers were based to the east in the Arabian Sea, the Navy map shows.

Two amphibious assault ships (Iwo Jima and Gunston Hill) were situated to the east in the Gulf of Oman and one (New York) was in the Gulf of Aden, the map shows.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.