Category Archives: exposing Obama

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone. Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

Mr. President, Enough With the Lies, the Fear, and the Spin

barack_obama_muslim_partner

First, let me start off by saying, this is not a Democrat vs. Republican piece. This is a “administration gone stupid” piece.

These budget games have been played for years. These fights over who knows best have been played for years. But Mafia-style thuggery, like this, should be left in Chicago, New York, Miami, or Boston. I presume they are used to it and know how to deal with it.

The government shutdown caused by the failure of the Senate to pass a budget in the last five years (read my piece from last week if you need details) should have no effect on our war memorials. If we can keep the president’s golf courses open and Mrs. Obama’s 16 assistants funded and, if, we can continue to enter into contracts and pay for guards to protect illegal aliens marching at the National Mall, then we can allow our veterans to visit their war memorial. Yes, we could have cancelled the march on the National Mall, just like we cancelled some air shows across the country. Air shows that demonstrate what American pride and strength look like. Air shows that inspire our kids to want to be soldiers and pilots and heroes!

Now, on October 1st, the White House ordered the National Park Service to put up barricades around the monuments in and around Washington, D.C. That included the World War II Memorial, an open air monument normally open year round, with no chains, no gate, ever… until now. Did anyone in the White House stop to think that the brave men and women who most want to visit these monuments, our veterans, were not thwarted when landing at the beaches of Normandy, were not stopped by ground to air fire, nor stopped by depth charges or torpedoes? Did they really think some little crowd control gates were going to stop them from paying respects to their fallen brothers and sisters? Apparently, no one in the White house has ever been in a combat position to understand the determination of our veterans.

Planeloads of World War II veterans were scheduled to arrive on Honor Flights to visit their war memorial. Instead, this administration spent money and time to block the monument from those it stands to honor. To call this ridiculous would not do it justice.

And let’s not stop at the veterans. The White House is also attempting to cancel the Air Force vs. Navy football game, and the Army’s game against Boston College. It doesn’t seem to matter that service academy athletic programs are self-funded private organizations requiring no government funds. It also doesn’t seem to matter that by cancelling the Air Force-Navy game alone, those programs stand to lose $4 million. According to a story in the Capital Gazette, Naval Academy Athletic Director Chet Gladchuk said…
“We could run our entire athletics program and conduct events as we always do without any government funds… in talking to the Air Force athletic director, their football team could execute the trip without government funding.”

According to the National Review, when the Department of Defense was asked why it was suspending intercollegiate athletic contests if government funds were not required, Gladchuk said he was told it was about ‘optics.’ “It’s a perception thing.”
Think about this. It is self-funded. That means no tax dollars. The programs will lose millions. And all this current White House administration cares about is perception?!

The White House told us health care wouldn’t cost us any extra money and everyone would have healthcare. Yes, they sold you PERCEPTION.

This president said he was going to fundamentally transform this country to be a better country. Yes, he sold you PERCEPTION.

Our nation’s founding fathers feared the majority of a mob as much as they feared the tyranny of a King, and that’s why they gave us a Constitutional system of checks and balances that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is using today. Minority rights are protected in that document, which makes the position of a president demanding 100 percent compliance proof positive that he doesn’t understand the document he swore to uphold.

Mr. President, tear down these unnecessary barricades, gates, and roadblocks. Quit shutting down programs that have no reliance on government funding. And stop with the lies, the fear, and the spin. Our founding fathers were fearful of under-informed voters because they knew it could mean disaster. You seem to feed on misinforming and sometimes even downright lying to public simply to justify your position. You seem to embrace disaster and thrive on confusion.

Tear down the walls you have erected, stop exaggerating the divisions, and work to unite all of us. Maybe then, you’d allow us to be that great country we can be, and once were, again.

Why the government shutdown is the worst idea ever

johnboehner

House Speaker John Boehner flanked by his House colleagues. Photo credit: Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite.

Never, ever shut down the federal government again.

- President Bill Clinton, 1996 State of the Union Address

 

As everyone knows, on October 1st at midnight, the federal government shut down for the first time in 17 years. This event has had and will have lasting, serious, negative consequences for the entire country, and even moreso for the two political parties. This article will explain why, looking from a conservative Republican perspective, shutting down the federal government is the worst idea possible for the GOP, the conservative movement, and the country that my fellow conservatives claim to care about first and foremost. In short, the shutdown is bad policy AND bad politics.

Why it’s bad politics for the GOP and conservatives

Contrary to what many of my fellow conservatives think, nothing good can come out of this conundrum for conservatives or for the Republican Party (regardless of whatever future you wish for that party). This is a battle we simply cannot win, and no amount of throwing the RINO epithet at everyone who disagrees with you will change that fact.

Some have pointed out to polls supposedly showing Barack Obama’s approval ratings as being at 40% or lower, and disapproval ratings going over 50%. Even if these polls are scientific and accurate – and depending on who commissioned them, they might not be – these people completely ignore the fact that Congressional Republicans and the Tea Party have even lower approval ratings in the eyes of the American people.

According to polls commissioned by Fox News – hardly a liberal outlet – Congressional Republicans had only a 23% approval rating in June and August, with disapproval ratings of 67% and 66%, respectively. That means that fully TWO THIRDS of the American public view Congressional Republicans – especially their conservative wing – negatively.

By contrast, Congressional Democrats’ approval ratings, while still dismal, were better than Republicans': 32% approval and 60% disapproval in both June and August.

Moreover, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell has the worst ratings of any major party leader in America today: 22% approval, 42% disapproval in October.  John Boehner has 27% approval and 51% disapproval ratings (in April, he had 31% approval and only 41% disapproval). Even Harry Reid now does better at 27% approval and 43% disapproval) in the same month. Nancy Pelosi is at 35% approval, 47% disapproval (whereas in April, she was at 31% approval and 48% disapproval, so her image has improved since then).

Barack Obama, meanwhile, while having seen his approval ratings slump somewhat, still enjoys much higher popularity than anyone in Congress. His approval ratings, according to various polls, average at 45%, and range from a low end of 40% (Fox News, 54% disapproval) to a high end of 47% approval and the same amount disapproving.

So no matter what poll you take, Barack Obama, while hardly at the peak of his popularity, is STILL seen far more favorably than anyone in Congress, ESPECIALLY Congressional Republicans, ESPECIALLY their conservative wing.

It is inevitable that this government shutdown will take a heavy toll on the Tea Party’s, the conservative movement’s, and the GOP’s image in the American public’s eyes, and it may well prevent Republicans from retaking the Senate and the White House in 2014 and 2016. Even before the shutdown began, polls were warning that more Americans would blame the GOP than Barack Obama for the shutdown. Now, after it has happened, the veteran political analyst Charlie Cook warns us that the shutdown could cost the GOP future elections.

Despite the garbage that the Tea Party and its allies on talk radio like Rush Limbaugh probably feed you, the reality is that the absolute majority of Americans wants moderate policies from the GOP and wants both parties – including Republicans – to compromise. Gallup has demonstrated this repeatedly over the last several years, over and over again, including here, here, here, here,  here, here, and most recently here. In fact, as the shutdown drew closer, Americans’ desire to see the two parties compromise increased.

According to that most recent poll, published just a week before the shutdown, 53% of all Americans (an absolute majority), as well as 56% of moderates, 65% of liberals, 55% of indies, 61% of Democrats, and even a plurality of conservatives (42%) said, just a week before the shutdown, that it was more important to compromise and avert the shutdown than to “stick to principles.” Just 25% of all Americans, and only a third of conservatives, said it’s more important to “stick to principles.”

The two groups most hostile to compromise were Republicans (only 38% supported it) and Tea Partiers (39%). 36% of Republicans and 40% of Tea Partiers said it’s better to “stick to principles” even if it means shutting the federal government down.

This fact is not lost on the American people; by far their biggest criticism of the GOP is that it is “unwilling to compromise.” This is the biggest criticism levied at the GOP by Dems, independents, and even Republicans themselves.

The current government shutdown will only aggravate this problem. The longer it continues, the heavier the toll on the GOP’s and the conservative movement’s image will be.

Contrary to what the Tea Party and the likes of Rush Limbaugh tell you, the GOP is not “Dem lite” or “not conservative enough” and does not want to “surrender” on Obamacare. The GOP is, in fact, criticized by American voters, including a plurality of Republicans, for being too unwilling to compromise. And compromise is not nearly the same thing as surrender – under a compromise, EVERYONE has to swallow unpalatable stuff, Republicans as well as Democrats.

The biggest damage will be in the eyes of moderates, women, youngsters, and minorities – the very voters the GOP will need to win future elections, or to even stay relevant as a party.

Why it’s a bad policy

The shutdown is not only bad politics, it’s bad policy too. The GOP’s objective, as we all know, is to get rid of, or defund, Obamacare. However, that – or any other meaningful policy change – CANNOT come about while Obama is still in office and controls the Senate. Republicans simply CANNOT govern the country from one half of Congress – as the astute Charles Krauthammer, Brent Bozell’s MRC’s latest award recipient, has rightly remarked in a column warning Republicans against the shutdown.

To defund Obamacare, Republicans can do only two things: either shut the entire government down, as they have done, or somehow convince Senate Democrats to pass, and President Obama to sign, a bill defunding Obamacare.

As Krauthammer has warned in his seminal column, there is NO WAY IN HELL Obama will sign into law a bill defunding, or delaying the implementation of, his singular legislative “accomplishment” – the Dems had been waiting for over 50 years to check this item on “FDR’s Unfinished Business List”, as Ann Coulter calls it.

Obama will never agree to anything that defunds his sole legislative “achievement”, the sine qua non of a liberal welfare state, liberals’ Holy Grail. Nor will Senate Democrats, marching in lockstep with Harry Reid, vote for defunding or otherwise gutting Obamacare.

And short of them agreeing to the impossible, the only way to defund Obamacare is to shut the federal government down completely.

Republicans have already tried this, in a way. In 1995, under Newt Gingrich’s leadership, they offered President Clinton a budget funding parts of, but not all, of the federal government; cutting spending faster than he was willing to accept. When Clinton said no, Republicans shut the federal government down – and that killed their chances of winning in 1996. Eventually, Republicans had to agree to a budget on terms not much different from what Clinton offered before the shutdown.

So no, there is no way Republicans can win this shutdown battle – or to defund Obamacare while Obama is still in office.

And let’s use some common sense. Does ANYONE really believe that Republicans can undo ANY meaningful Obama policy – ANY significant part of Obama’s “legacy” – while he’s still in office, wielding a veto pen, a bully pulpit, and a 55-seat Senate majority?

Margaret Thatcher famously said “first you win the argument, then you win the vote.” What she forgot to add is “and only then can you make policy.” Thatcher would’ve never been able to make any policy changes had her party not won a clear majority in the Commons. And that, in turn, would’ve never happened if she had led her party to the right fringe of British politics, alienating the vital center.

Republicans first need to convince a clear majority of Americans that Obamacare still can and should be repealed, then win back the Senate and the White House, and ONLY THEN can they make any policy changes, like repealing Obamacare.

So the shutdown, however it ends, will CLEARLY fail to achieve the GOP’s objective: defunding Obamacare.

The damage to the military

In addition to the damage the shutdown will do to the GOP’s and conservatives’ public image, it will also wreak havoc on the US military, adding greatly to the damage being done by the sequester.

A government shutdown means that eventually, when the money runs out from previous years’ approps, there will be nothing to pay the troops with, no money for their and veterans’ care, and no money for current training and equipment maintenance, operations (like protecting the skies over the US), and the development and acquisition of new equipment, nor to pay DOD civilian employees (the majority of whom are not pencil-pushers but real hard workers, like mechanics at military depots).

Why shut the government down?

The ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu advised against fighting on ground, or at a time, disadvantageous to you, or when the enemy is too strong. He further wisely counseled (The Art of War, ch. 12, v. 17):

“Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.”

So how did America get into this mess in the first place? If the shutdown won’t achieve any conservative policy objective and will only do damage, why was this stand-off started?

Because the fringe of the GOP, including the Tea Party, which views any compromise as betrayal and anything other than scorched-Earth tactics as surrender, demanded that Republicans shut the government down over Obamacare. And most Republicans in Congress, scared to death of a Tea Party primary challenge, listened to the Tea Party and followed suit – thus driving America over the cliff.

Most House Republicans and many GOP Senators, including Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, come from single-party GOP monopolies where most people are hardline conservatives who see any compromise as treason. These politicians live in single-party conservative cocoons and are thus totally detached from reality and out-of-touch with most Americans (as is the Tea Party itself). Just check the PVI ratings of Raul Labrador’s district (ID-1) and of the states of Texas, Utah, and Kentucky. Their districts and states are no more representative of America than Nancy Pelosi’s SF district.

Thus, they have no incentive to compromise, and far more to fear from a Tea Party primary challenger than a general election Democratic opponent. So they continue pushing the country to the brink, as the Tea Party demands, the consequences be damned.

Sadly, they may well take the GOP, and not just the country, over the cliff with them.

Government Has Met the Enemy & It Is Us

Taxpayers sent to back of the bus as feds barricade MLK monument.
Taxpayers sent to back of the bus as feds barricade MLK monument.

Taxpayers sent to back of the bus as feds barricade MLK monument.

Americans are learning to their great surprise that Smokey the Bear has big, sharp teeth.

Formerly warm and cuddly branches of government — the Park Service, Forest Service and other granola–based management teams — have suddenly turned on innocent taxpayers who only wanted to scratch behind their ears.

You’re no doubt familiar with the WWII veterans who removed barriers the US Park Police erected to block the formerly law enforcement–free WWII Monument on the Mall. (Best sign of the Shutdown: “Normandy was closed when we got there, too.”) But that’s only one of many incidents.

The Washington Post interviewed a visitor from San Antonio who “expressed indignation at the petty ways that officials prevented people from enjoying national landmarks.” Her family had no problem looking at the cemetery itself since putting barriers in front of each tombstone was too much for even Smokey Bear. But they were unable to peek inside Arlington House because “they put black plastic in the windows so we couldn’t look in.”

If the reporter could have found a spokesperson not literally manning the barricades, I’m sure the response would have been the plastic was simply part of the annual preparations for the ‘Old Virginny Haunted House of Slavery’ that takes place in the mansion every October.

(SEEMarse’ Robert with blood on his hands! GASP as Stonewall Jackson sleeps during Christian services, dreaming of denying women the right to fight on the front line! SCREAM as Virginia terrorist Col. John Mosby provides inspiration for modern TEA party insurgents while he works for a TOTAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!)

Any intimation that plastic–covered windows are a Glad bag thumb in the eye to conservatives is simply more delusional ranting from a party on Cruz control.

As the shutdown continues it’s obvious there is an air of desperation surrounding this whole petty, vindictive exercise on the part of the Obama Administration. The illegality, over reaction and simply hateful response of “public servants” to the actual public is so obvious even the media can no longer ignore it.

The question is why the federal tantrum? The answer is the Spite House (thank you Michelle Malkin) can’t afford to lose this fight like they did the sequester. Instead of being “the end of life as we knew it,” the sequester has become an accepted fact of life. Sequester was designed to be so destructive to defense that responsible Republicans would rescue the Pentagon, even if it meant more deficit spending on social programs.

The calculation failed. Setting a spending cut precedent was so important Republicans decided the 2,666 miles separating China from the USA would have to defend the country for now. In the event of a Chinese invasion, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–LaRaza) would remove any hostile intent by putting them on the fast track to citizenship.

Budget talks now start with the sequester cuts as the baseline, and not an extraordinary one–time nick to the budget. Obamacrats can’t risk the public leaning they can function without 100 percent of the federal government.

Which is why duplicitous, politically motivated “public servants” are working hand–in–hand with the White House to provide the maximum inconvenience with the least blame for the administration. A painless 5 percent sequester, followed by a 17 percent government shutdown that isn’t a disaster for someone might create a climate where rolling back the size of government becomes a reality.

Hence the no–knock shutdowns. The Washington Times found Bruce O’Connell, the owner of the Pisgah Inn located on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina, fighting the arbitrary shutdown of his business. According to the story, “O’Connell said his workers are not federal employees, and his fire, police and rescue services all come from the county, so he isn’t drawing any federal funds.”

Uncle Sam’s only role before the shutdown was taking money from him in the form of fees. In the light of the nation’s budget situation, staying open would make money and possibly prevent that sequester–enabled Chinese invasion. Instead Obama spends money to prevent income after O’Connell refused to close. That act of defiance won him a visit from park rangers who were suddenly stationed in his driveway turning away paying customers.

Under the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of bureaucratic whim, if the Park Service thought it had the authority to close the inn it would have requested an injunction from a federal judge. O’Connell’s failure to close is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. There is no threat to public safety, only a threat to Big Government collectivists. Since time and the law were not on its side, the Obama administration used implied force to perform an arbitrary seizure.

Here in the Washington area, our rulers dispatched Park Police to close Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington. Once again the facts don’t support federal action. Mount Vernon is owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, the only investment the Park Service has is shared ownership of a parking lot.

The service could have posted a sign on their half of the lot warning drivers to park at their own risk and beware of paint chips stirred up by passing motorists. Instead the Park Service closed the entire facility, which is simply illegal, until the doughty Ladies Association fought back and reopened.

The feds tried the same shuffle with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, instructing him to close several parks. Gov. Walker not only refused to close any parks, he also ordered state officials to remove barricades the feds had installed to prevent taxpayers from using their own facilities.

(This act of courage could backfire, as federal memories are long. If Wisconsin some time in the future suffers a hurricane or the glaciers return I predict federal response will be very slow.)

Walker has the advantage of controlling his own law enforcement resources and in a pinch, the Wisconsin National Guard. So he can prevent illegal attempts at seizures by having his people intimidate their people.

Unfortunately, the rest of us don’t have that option when “public servants” stop serving the will of the people and start imposing their will on the people.

A Disgrace Worthy of a Resignation

10092013

It is unconscionable. It is rude, insensitivity, callus and unacceptable. With the news that family members of fallen soldiers killed in Afghanistan are not only being denied death benefits, but are being denied transportation to Dover AFB for the arrival of the caskets containing the remains of their loved ones, the Obama Administration has crossed a “red line” with the American people. Progressives in Washington and across the nation, you are now on notice: We – regular, rank-and-file, hard-working American every-men and -women – are not going to take the “pain” of your ideological agenda anymore.

Few things are sacrosanct among all Americans, the proper treatment and respect of the men and women of the Armed Forces – and their families – one such thing. But Mr. Obama, his administration, and the sycophants who voted for and support them have disrespected and caused unnecessary pain for these patriots, both fallen and family. Just as in the 1960s, these very same people and people of the same mindset, are once again spitting in the faces of the American soldier, this time extending that vile discontent to the survivors and their children.

FOX News reports:

It’s another ugly symptom of Mr. Obama’s partial government shutdown — and this time it impacts the families of soldiers who are dying for their country.

The Pentagon confirmed Tuesday that, as long as the budget impasse lasts, it will not be able to pay death benefits to the families of troops who’ve been killed in combat.

“Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time,” said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman.

House lawmakers, though, are planning to vote Wednesday on a bill to restore funding for the payments. And Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), on Tuesday accused the Obama administration of needlessly withholding the money…

The Pentagon says it has specific instructions from its budget office not to make payments for deaths that occurred after 11:59pm on Sept. 30, 2013.

And that’s about enough…We should all demand – demand – the name of the imbecile who made this decision (I am certain that it came from Mr. Obama’s inner-circle) and demand – demand – that person’s resignation, terminating that person’s governmental career complete with withheld benefits.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief and that position mandates a responsibility to care for the whole of the military family. This responsibility is absolute and non-discretionary. That this situation even exists must – must and without question – rest on Mr. Obama’s shoulders personally.

In fact, if one of the duties of the Presidency is being Commander in Chief, this abdication of responsibility to our soldiers and their families (they are considered military families and many live on military bases, shop at military base PXs, etc.) for political purposes should be deemed an impeachable offense; disavowing any aspect of the position of Commander in Chief must be considered a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

We, as a nation, have been subjected to the arrogance and bully-tactics of Mr. Obama’s Chicago Progressive political mindset long enough. We have been subjected to the sycophancy of a Progressive mainstream media continuously lobbing softball questions to this president; ignoring not only the execution of poor government, but scandals that – in more than one case – have cost Americans their lives. I contend that this is too high a price for a country to pay just because Progressive ideologues insists on executing the politically correct, “social justice,” Marxist transformation of our nation, purely for power, fame and fortune.

It is time to define Progressivism for what it is: a destructive force that is antithetical to our Founders’ vision of a limited government and a free people. It is also time to confront Progressivism at every level, in every governmental chamber, on every street corner and in every individual.

Progressivism is not unlike Islamofascism in that the ideology is not – not –compatible with the Natural Law right to individual liberty and the overall concepts of self-reliance and freedom. It also stands as just as lethal a threat to our nation.

That Mr. Obama has not already addressed the subject of getting the fallen soldiers’ families their promised death benefits and respectful transportation to Dover AFB for the arrival of the caskets is beyond disgraceful. If Mr. Obama had a shred of decency; an once of honor, he would have already ordered a solution to this problem from the available Pentagon funding (and yes, there is money there to satisfy this situation). That he hasn’t should result in his resignation from office…immediately.

Yes, it is that much of an issue.

New York Times Finally Has Authentic Communist Columnist to Make Alger Hiss Would Red With Envy: Vladimir Putin!

Putin KGB officer

Putin KGB officer 

 

 

The New York Times finally has an authentic Soviet communist writing its progressive op-eds: Former KGB Assassin now thug Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And he rides in shirtless, his naked chest covered in gold chains and in bad need of a woman’s 18 Hour bra, atop a horse!

shirtless putin

Ah yes, it creates a whole new mean to the question: “Where’s the beef?”

putin

Alger Hiss would be red with envy!

This KGB assassin who views himself as Russia’s sexy killer beefcake is now an official featured op-ed contributor for the New York Times! And he has a column in the September 12th issue op-ed section titled “A Plea For Caution: What Putin Has To Say to Americans About Syria,” explaining his relationship with Obama. Don’t worry darling leftists; Vlad let us Americans know his “relationship” with Marxist pal Obama is

marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

 

Good heavens, I hope American exceptionalism his considered treacherous to a dodgy murderous thug like Putin! We should want that S.O.B. afraid of America, not laughing at America because we have a mommy-pants-wearing Marxist president who handed the keys of free world leadership over to Putin on a Chinese-made silver-plated platter as he addressed the nation concerning Syria and Putin taking control of chemical weapons negotiations.

What could Putin tell Americans about Syria that we haven’t already figured out: Russia uses its veto power to protect Bashir Assad, Russia and Iran enable and aid Syria, Russia is in league with Iran and Syria and Russia is intent on becoming the world’s supper power and head of the free world.Yes, there’s much to trust there!

Look how Russia is now calling the shots– through the New York Times:

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

 

The UN falling by the wayside because an incompetent Marxist can’t swing anything but a golf club? Oh my, we don’t want the fate of the world suffering at the hands of a community organizer who’s only capable of organizing his golf swing. The profound wisdom of Putin can lead us as the “underpinning” for the weakened and unstable leadership of Obama.

The New York Times has found its Joseph Stalin!

putin assassin

The op-ed killer warns us further:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance… Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

 

Talk about clever. The devout Soviet officer taking the side of life and peace! A professional assassin talking about protecting the world from mercenaries: What does that tell you all?

Does Putin really want peace or is he in this for what he can gain? If you have to think twice about that answer, you might be an Obama voter.

The Russian assassin is warning America—via the Times— that Obama’s foreign policy will destabilize the world. As if we don’t know that already. But hey, Gulags never complicated anything!

The fact is Putin wants control of world and the United States: That way Putin, who never leaves office, has control of oil and world currency with his Muslim and Chinese friends on his side. And the backing of the New York Times of course!

Putin gave the anti-war crowd what they want: He criticized Obama’s Afghanistan policies: The war has been escalated, not ended, and more have been killed when Obama promised peace and hope.

Even Hitler would be in awe of this con job comment:

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

 

Russia, the land of torture-by-starvation, an advocate for peace? Russia, the home of bullets-to-the-head and poison soup, speaking out against aggression? Russia invented the Gulag for heaven’s sake! Russian leaders are as peaceful as a Roman Senate playing with knives in the month of March.

Putin will protect us as: “Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored,” and “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.”

Since when does a Russian dictator care about attacks on Israel? Russia executed Jews in mass numbers during its Gulag years and ignores its starving Russian Jewish population left to die.

Since when does Putin not use the “language of force?” This guy is all about forcing civilization to his political will.

The New York Times must be on cloud nine. They finally have a writer who took five minutes of attention away from Rush Limbaugh! Five minutes is better than nothing when you are the New York Times and nobody except Chris Matthews and his six viewers care what you print.

We Need to Be Honest; Dispensing With the Spin

Daquella Manera (CC)

As we consider the anniversary of September 11th – now, both 2001 and 2012, it is important to consider some simple truths. These truths eluded our government and the nation in the early days after September 11th, 2001, because partisan politicians in Washington, DC, erected walls that kept our law enforcement and intelligence communities from honestly informing each other about the threats to our nation and her citizens. Even more disturbingly, today, little has changed. Twelve years after the initial attacks by al Qaeda on our country, most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations are left unaddressed and an administration has been elected to office that refuses to identify the enemy for their common bond.

Sun Tzu wrote, in The Art of War, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.”

Before September 11th, 2001, we, as a nation, were unfamiliar with not only Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but also the whole of the Islamist dogma. Now, after the slaughter of four brave Americans in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, our nation’s leadership, hobbled by the Progressive tenet of political correctness, refuses to accurately identify the enemy; to identify the root cause for the overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world.

Before September 11th, 2001, we were ignorant of the lesson found in Sun Tzu’s quote. After September 11th, 2012, our leadership simply ignores Sun Tzu’s wisdom.

It is indisputable that with precious few exceptions, the perpetrators of almost every terrorist act in the world today have a direct connection to Islamist jihadis; who, in turn, exist solely under the ideological umbrella of the religion of Islam. Those who argue to the contrary are either uninformed, deniers, fools or intellectually stunted. Yet our current leadership exists so crippled by their ideological dogma that they, purposefully, refuse to identify the obvious enemy; the enemy who has declared, in no uncertain terms, that Islam will reign supreme; that they intend to conquer the world in the name of their religion.

A perfect example of this pig-ignorance comes in the issue of Syria.

Whether you believe President Obama and his team are inept in their foreign policy, unconcerned about anything but the “fundamental transformation” of the United States domestically, or sympathetic to the Islamist cause – or perhaps all three, the notion that there is a side to champion in the Syrian conflict is ignorant folly. Yes, Bashar al Assad is a tyrant, brutal to his own people in his quest to retain power in that country. And it is a distinct possibility that he or his field commanders may have used chemical weapons against civilians as well as rebel forces. But intervening in an effort to champion al Assad’s opposition literally places the United States in an alliance with those who support and fight in the name of al Qaeda, the very people who both slaughtered 2,996 people and injured over 6,000 more on September 11th, 2001, and viciously murdered four Americans, including a US ambassador on September 11th, 2012.

Additionally, each action and non-action taken by this administration has not only decreased the standing of the United States in the Middle East, but has facilitated the rise of Islamists to positions of influence throughout the region. Even the Obama Administration’s objection to the Egyptian military’s deposing of the illegitimately elected Muslim Brotherhood to government, in the aftermath of Mubarak’s fall from power, favored Islamists; those who would establish Sharia law and band together to form a regional caliphate.

So, the base question that each and every American should be asking him or herself is this. What the hell are we doing? Why are we aligning or aiding any faction, movement or government that exists sympathetic or in allegiance to anything Islamist?

Further, why haven’t we had the courage – as a free people – to ask the questions that politically correct Progressives and the intellectually squeamish run from, like:

▪ Why isn’t the Islamist ideology held accountable for the violent actions of those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam?

▪ Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia – the protectors of the most holy locations in the Islamic religion, been held to account for not only the actions of their charge, but for literally exporting the most virulent strain of Islam (Wahhabism) to foreign shores?

▪ Why are our elected officials so adverse to recognizing – and then stating as their positions – that the tenets of Sharia law are not compatible with the freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Charters of Freedom and in Western ideology?

▪ Why – why – are our leaders so frightened of identifying an enemy who has declared war on the West – and the United States and Israel, specifically, for years and years and years…?

▪ Why – why – is the West so terrified of confronting the evil that exists in the Islamist ideology; the evil that cuts the heads of innocents, eats the organs of its foes, burns Christian churches to the ground as they execute priests and nuns; the evil that wants to finish what Adolf Hitler started with regard to the world’s Jewish population?

▪ And why, why, why, do we elect idiot politicians who make excuses for bloodthirsty jihadis, even to the points of denying that “Allahu Akbar!” is an Islamist battle cry and lobbying for weaponry and alliance?

The issue of whether the United States should act because chemical weapons were used in Syria is a serious matter. The use of WMD is something that the entire world community should take very seriously. But when both sides of the conflict despise you; when both combatants in the fight hold you, your nation, your nation’s citizens and the whole of the Western world in contempt, perhaps that fight; perhaps the action needed in the aftermath of the use of those WMD, must come from within that faction’s own world. If the use of WMD is so outrageous to the whole of humanity, perhaps Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain should take action against Syria, the rebels or whoever else is eventually found to be guilty of this atrocity.

To wit, the fact is undeniable: Whoever wins in Syria will not be a friend to the United States and the West, so aiding one side over another is a pretty stupid investment of blood and/or treasure.

And while the debate on the use of WMD in Syria is one that should be undertaken, it should be undertaken with the pre-condition that we in the West – and especially we here in the United States – realize that Islamists are not our friends, evidenced not only by their actions, but by their words; their threats, their promises and their declarations.

The battle – both ideologically and physically – between the West and Islamism is a fundamental battle between good and evil; between the cultures of personal liberty and oppression. Islamism, Sharia and all of the Islamist tenets that entangle that dogma in conquest, oppression, violence and the worship of death, exist as nemesis to the free world; the enemy of freedom itself.

That limp-wristed politicians, Progressives and sympathetic apologists from the West refuse to admit the obvious doesn’t make the fact any less real. It just makes the West – and the people of the West – subject to the dangers, subject to the murderous violence, that Islamism projects onto the world.

On this observance of September 11th, 2001 – and now September 11th, 2012, I, again, offer my condolences to all those directly affected by the loss of life, and offer my appreciation to all those who have answered the call to defend liberty and freedom around the world.

On this observance of the “September 11ths,” I stand unashamed to say, I know who the enemy is…both inside and outside the gates.

An Obama Scheme

obama-angry_05

So, today, as Secretary of State, John Kerry, reeled off the reasons that the United States should find itself embroiled in a civil war in the Middle East, as Vladimir Putin weighs his responses, and as Obama declares that the U.S. will go it alone if they have to, the world waits. The world seems to split into a few different camps .

Some wonder who actually used the poison gas that killed thousands of Syrians (despite Kerry’s swearing that he is positive it was Assad’s men, not rebels). Some wonder, why now? Suddenly, gas is a thousand deaths too far? Yet others may wonder why there is not more pressure on the U.N. to provide peacekeepers, or to investigate if it was actually gas used, or to hold a vote, in the face of an assured Russian veto, to allow nations to intervene.

Here at home, there are any number of Obama administration scandals that a person could point to, that would easily take a backseat to a brand new war. While the country is war-weary, the men that do the fighting are fathers, sons, and brothers, and using them as some sort of executive strike force would lose far more respect for the president than allowing most of the scandals to run their course. Of course, that takes for granted that this administration still has respect left to lose.

As it seems now, any Syrian actions will revolve around the use of tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost around $1.4 million per launch. The odd thing about a new attack (or kinetic military action, as they are now known), is that the president may have waited so long to act, he has excuses no matter the outcome. Perhaps that is what the delay was all about – coming up with explanations to describe what has happened, no matter what happens.

Plan A: Obama orders $140 million worth of missile strikes (probably a very low total estimate of what strikes would actually cost), and they will have little to no effect on the man who Obama intends to punish, Bashir Assad. Assad has already had plenty of time to move the missiles and other weapons that Obama would ostensibly target. So, the missile strikes would amount to little more than another giant waste of money and manpower, and accomplishes nothing…Except anger Russia and Iran. For his part, Obama stresses how he only had the most positive outcome in mind. He was trying to do the right thing.

Plan B: Obama orders his strikes, and through either bad intelligence or some other missile snafu, a strike hits a Russian or Iranian-owned building or other concern. In that scenario, I would anticipate a quick reaction of the administration to be to throw money at the problem, to quickly make it go away. For Russia or Iran’s part, they could probably take the issue to the United Nations, and seek to shame the United States. As a result, the U.S.’s standing in the world gets tarnished again. Obama says it was an unfortunate event, (and without mentioning the payoff) he is glad that the country who suffered the loss decided against any “rushed actions”, and that the countries have something to build on now.

Plan C: Obama orders more extensive actions than just a missile strike. This not only entails aircraft, both fighters and bombers, it also risks pilots’ lives – something that missiles do not do. One can only guess how an angry Assad, unjustly attacked (in his eyes) would treat a downed American pilot. In that case, who does Obama turn to, being allied with Al-Qaeda elements and France, for diplomatic channels to get the pilot released? Once he figures out the magic word (or amount) I would expect Obama to spin the achievement of his State Department.

When you are a Teflon president, there is little worry of having a scandal or war failure attach to you. With the ongoing scandals having little effect on Obama so far, it may have only emboldened him to act more brazenly than he might have previously. With so many yes-men in place, willing to fall on a sword for you, what is the your source of critical thought or reflection of your actions? Having only been told positive things about your actions, while having a press that minimizes negativity, warranted or not, is not good for a leader. Of the many things that Barack Obama has done, and has taken upon himself to enact via executive order, this should truly bear the title of Obama’s War, regardless of outcome.

Barack Obama, liberal policies fan the flames of racism against White America

moralmatters2
Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States on a promise of hope and change. Hope for a better America, hope for a more prosperous America, and hope for a more united America. Along with his historic election came an even more historic opportunity. The ability to help heal race relations once and for all in this country.

But that opportunity was never taken advantage of. Instead of trying to unite Americans of every color, every creed, and of every socio-economic status, this President has chosen instead to use identity politics and class warfare to systematically and intentionally divide this nation.

Once thing is for certain, Barack Obama is not stupid. He may not be able to give a speech without a teleprompter but thats because he doesn’t have to. He is well on his way to accomplishing exactly what he said he would do; fundamentally transform America.

His complete disdain for America, the Constitution, and anything having to do with Christian-Judeo Values is quite remarkable. The Constitution to a power hungry leftist like our President is nothing more than a speed bump in the road. Who better to drive around those speed bumps than a Constitutional scholar?

The Democratic Party was very smart. They knew what most of the people in this country did not know. That America was ready to elect its first minority President. They knew if they could find someone who could appeal to both White and Black America; with the help of the media they could get that person over the finish line.

Enter Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

A half Black, half White Illinois Senator a majority of Americans never even heard of. The left introduced Barack Obama to America as a living savior. They put him on a pedestal as if he was the second coming of Christ himself. He became a mystifying, mesmerizing, public figure. His loyal fans were very cult like and much like the Manson family probably would’ve done just about anything for their new leader.

Barack Obama ran on a platform of divide. He said he would “tax the rich” and make them “pay their fair share”. Then he promised free healthcare, free education, free this, and free that. He was the modern day version of Robin Hood.

But like all fairytales eventually you have to wake up and realize they are not real. What the President didn’t tell Americans is that nothing in life is free; especially if it comes from the government. When you allow your government to provide for you there are always strings attached to their percieved generosity. Usually it is in the form of your liberty and freedom.

After his selection, (let’s face it there was no way the left and the media were not going to make him win) America’s race relations showed real promise. His selection gave most Americans new hope. White America was finally able to wash away the stain of slavery, and Black America was finally able to heal, forgive, and feel as though they were now equal.

But that all changed. Instead just the opposite happened. With millions of people out of work, a fledgling economy, and a tanking housing market, the President intentionally made things worse. Instead of lowering taxes, he wanted to raise them. Instead of cutting spending, he increased it. Instead of solving problems he created new ones. But the worst thing he did was start to dismantle healing hearts through discrimination and victimization.

His political positions started to alienate certain groups of Americans. His anti-business pro government policies angered the majority of small business owners in the country. His anti-coal stance was responsible for the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs throughout rural America. His contraception mandate angered the 77 million Catholics in the country. His numerous attempts to pass anti Second Amendment legislation angered the more than 80 million gun owners in the country, and his healthcare bill will affect almost every single person in one way or another.

A large ideological divide started to deepen and take hold and is now larger than the Grand Canyon.

The President and his cheerleading squad in the media started to protect him by pulling the race card every single time someone disagreed with his policies. If you were against taxing the rich you were for keeping minorities poor. If you were against increasing spending you were somehow considered un-American. If you were a climate change skeptic you were for dirty air and water. If you were against the government taking over your healthcare decisions you were for denying the poor medical care and for pushing grandma over a cliff.

A majority of Black Americans foolishly started to buy into these arguments. With the help of groups like the NAACP, The New Black Panther Party, and so called civil rights leaders like Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson; America is getting dangerously close to an all out race war.

The race hustlers and poverty pimps like Jackson and Sharpton have hi-jacked the Civil Rights Movement and cheapened its meaning. In the past 20-30 years they have managed to use the guise of civil rights as a means of victimization and as a result have cultivated a culture of hate. They use charges of false racism as a weapon against White America. Couple that with political correctness and a complicit media and you have the makings of a very dangerous situation.

When our media purposely hides story after story of Black on White crimes and gleefully goes out of its way to report on White on Black crimes you know you have a major problem. That is why it is so important that the new media continues to expose the old media. The old media thankfully is a dying breed. Like dinosaurs that used to roam the earth billions of years ago they will eventually become extinct. With the internet, social media, and talk radio the old media hopefully will become a thing of the past.

White and Black Americans overall have come along way since the days of slavery. They have survived as a people despite Democratic Party policies like Jim Crow Laws and segregation. They have managed to prosper despite being considered 3/5th of a person and denied the right to vote by Southern Democrats.

Most Americans are not inherently racist. Too often one’s ideological difference gets misinterpreted as racism. Black Americans must learn to forgive but never forget. They must learn to not judge this generation for the sins of another. White Americans must continue to open their hearts and minds to their Black brothers and sisters. If we can continue to open hearts and minds we can repair the country and heal the nation.

For the record I vehemently oppose this President and his policies. I am counting down the days until he is finally out of office. I think his policies have set America back at least 25 to 30 years. I don’t think he is qualified to hold the office of dog catcher, let alone the Presidency.

However, like most Americans I have absolutely no issue with the President’s skin color. I believe as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that you should judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.

Don’t forget to catch the Grit and Grace Show every Thursday night from 8-10pm cst on the CDN Radio Network.

Gettig Hammered Radio – Friday, August 23, 2013

getting-hammered-radio

photo

 

When: Friday, August 23, 2013 at 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Getting Hammered with Steve Hamilton and Stevie J West

Tonight: It’s Friday night…we’re here…and we’re LIVE…from the studios of Casa de Hammy!! Join Stevie and Steve tonight with their guest Christine Harbin Hanson, AFP’s Federal Policy Analyst, discussing ObamaCare and the AFP conferences next weekend in Orlando. Also, we’ve got the news, twisted as only we can, and of course, we’ll Mock the week.

So grab a cold one and join us for the most wasted 90 minutes of your week…and stand by…’cause we’re Getting Hammered!

Government Shutdown?…Blame Obama & Reid

sankar govind (CC)

There are two statements one can make with certainty about the current situation inside the beltway. First, truth is a rare commodity. What was promised to be the most transparent administration in American history has proven to, by comparison, make Richard Nixon’s Administration look like Wikileaks. And second, the Republican Party, at its highest level, has a lethal messaging problem. These two truths combine for a moment in time when the United States government is not only susceptible to Progressive despotism, but well down the road to succumbing to it.

Where the transparency and honesty of the Obama Administration is concerned, the examples of dishonesty are many. From using the Internal Revenue Service to cripple their ideological and political opponents to advancing fiction as the cause of the slaughter of four Americans by al Qaeda operative in a quest for an election victory, the list of matters ringing dishonest emanating from this administration is profound:

▪ The IRS scandal
▪ Benghazi cover-up
▪ The NSA surveillance scandal
▪ Spying on the media
▪ Fast & Furious
▪ Being able to keep your current coverage under Obamacare
▪ The Pigford debacle
▪ Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
▪ The use of secret emails by agency heads
▪ Solyndra
▪ Dropping prosecution of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation

The list goes on and on and on, all the while the mainstream media provides cursory coverage at best, even as they provide rhetorical cover for the administration’s misdeeds.

But perhaps the most dishonest misinformation emanating from the Obama White House – and from the Democrat and Progressive controlled Senate, for that matter, is that Republicans want to shut down government. This out-and-out lie was false in 2011 and it is false today.

Since Republicans wrestled control of the US House of Representatives from the talons of Nancy Pelosi and her Progressive coven, the House has satisfied its constitutional obligation to craft and pass a budget, on time, each and every year, including for 2014. Conversely, Democrats and Progressives in the Senate have manufactured gimmicks and excuses to elude their budgetary obligations.

On January 7th, 2013, The Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote:

“Tuesday marks the 1,350th day since the Senate passed a budget. The law requires Congress to pass a budget every year, on the grounds that Americans deserve to know how the government plans to spend the trillions of taxpayer dollars it collects, along with dollars it borrows at the taxpayers’ expense. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, who last allowed a budget through the Senate in April 2009, has ignored the law since then.

“There’s no mystery why. The budget passed by large Democrat majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.

“While Reid has forbidden action, the House has passed budgets as required. Senate Democrats have been highly critical of those budgets, designed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. But under Reid’s leadership, Democrats have steadfastly refused to come up with a plan of their own.”

Yet the narrative advanced by Reid, his Democrat Senate cronies and the White House is that it is Republicans who exist as “the party of ‘no’” in the US Congress. The facts, as they present, prove otherwise.

Which leads us to the current misinformation spin being advanced by the Progressives in Washington, DC: The Republicans want to shut down government over Obamacare. Truth be told, even the staunchest TEA Partier in the House and/or Senate has gone on record as not wanting to shut down government.

Article I, Sections 7, 8 and 9, respectively, of the United States Constitution states mandates that the “power of the purse” resides solely with the US House of Representatives:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

A plan being advanced by the fiscally responsible in the US House proposes to fully fund the US federal government, devoid of any funding for the notorious and ill-crafted Affordable Care Act. The facts surrounding the proposal are thus:

▪ Government funding through the Continuing Resolution will expire on September 30th.

▪ The House should pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the entire federal government, except for Obamacare. To do so, the Continuing Resolution should include the Defund Obamacare Act (HR2682/S1292) to explicitly prohibit mandatory and discretionary Obamacare spending.

▪ If Republicans stand together, with 218 votes in the House and 41 in the Senate, we can win. House Republicans should send the Senate a Continuing Resolution that fully funds the government without funding Obamacare, and Senate Republicans should ensure that no Continuing Resolution providing Obamacare funding is signed into law.

▪ If Republicans do this, President Obama and Harry Reid will falsely accuse Republicans of threatening a government shutdown. But only they control whether to shut down the government just to implement their failed law.

To date, more than 60 House Republicans and 14 Senate Republicans have joined in this effort. The likes of Richard Shelby (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Roy Blount (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Orin Hatch (R-UT) have come out against the measure for what can only be construed as purely political reasons.

Given that the Progressives of the Obama White House and the Reid Senate have no issue with crafting falsehoods to advance their political power, Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and fiscally conservative Democrats should admit this inevitability. Whether fiscally responsible Republicans fund government devoid of Obamacare or not, Progressives and Democrats – including their sycophants in the mainstream media – are going to blame the GOP for any and all push back on the budget, the debt ceiling and the implementation of Obamacare, no matter what Republicans do.

This makes it all the more frustrating, if not infuriating, that Republicans at the national level – both elected and not – are miserable at messaging. In the last decades Republicans have shown not only a weakness in being able to message; to convey simple cognitive thoughts, to the American people, they have displayed a complete inability to craft and take control of “the narrative,” pre-emptively.

And while “establishment Republicans” (many of whom are Progressive elitists in their own right) blame their inability to communicate to the American people on a “facture within the party,” this avoids the stark truth that the national Republican party hasn’t had a coherent message or employed a potent counter-measure to the Progressive message since the days of Ronald Reagan.

(A note about the “facture within the party: It is more a confrontation between moderate Republicans who have allowed the party to be “nudged” to the ideological Left continuously and without reciprocation during their tenure, and those loyal to the party’s charter and tenets circa 1856; those identified as the TEA Party faction of the Republican Party; those advancing the “Defund Obamacare” movement in Congress. To wit, establishment Republicans didn’t want Ronald Reagan as their nominee either. He would have been considered a TEA Partier had the movement existed in his day.)

That said, the only thing keeping the Defund Obamacare initiative from saving the country from economic devastation and a nation devoid of individual rights is intestinal fortitude; courage and conviction.

On August 21st, 2013, a gunman, armed with an AK-47 and over 500 rounds of ammunition, entered a Georgia elementary school. Michael Brandon Hill, a 20-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, proceeded to take the school bookkeeper, Antoinette Tuff, hostage, in what could have been yet another senseless tragedy; another murderous rampage. Instead, the situation resolved in Mr. Hill being taken into custody unharmed, the children of the school safe and sound, all because Ms. Tuff had the courage to try to do the right thing. Ms. Tuff talked the would-be gunman into surrendering and seeking medical attention. Because of Ms. Tuff’s courage, because of her willingness to put the good of the children before her own self-preservation, everyone involved in the incident lives to see another day: Hill gets the help he needs and the children live to embrace their futures.

That the “establishment Republicans” on Capitol Hill would display the same courage as Ms. Tuff when it comes to doing the right thing; when it comes to making a decision to take a stand; when it comes to placing the good of the people about political self-preservation. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuffs on Capitol Hill. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuff’s in the Republican Party.

But there was a time when this was not the case.

Dr. Michael Savage: An Authentic Conservative Voice Crying Out in the Progressive Wilderness

Savage and Teddy

Savage and Teddy

Being an authentic conservative often means standing outside the inner-circle where conservatives should stand together fighting the progressives destroying America and the Constitution.

Dr. Michael Savage understands the alienation and fight better than anyone in radio and print news. He’s banned from entering Great Britain and placed on a terror-watch list for excising non-violent free speech.  Savage has never called for the killing of Muslims and gays.

I’m not sure if being banned from a country where people boil everything they eat and everyone marries their cousin is punishment.

The lack of camaraderie has been wielded against Dr. Michael Savage often. I still wonder where conservatives were when Savage was banned from entering the UK? Why weren’t fellow radio hosts screaming “this is a violation of free speech” and “If this can happen to Savage, it can happen to all of us!”

The fact is, authentic conservatives like Savage, working to restore our Constitutional Republic from socialism overrunning this nation into a soft-communist malaise, are trashed by the Left and Republican elites (who became Democrats for minority vote-grabbing) saving the can and kicking the Tea Party down the road.

I believe moderate Republicans (Democrats in cheap GOP suits) are fearful of Savage’s voice: Heavens! He might offend the people conservatives must stand up against and expose—Islam and illegal aliens—rather than trying to appease America’s greatest threats so the party can say “see, we’re really not racists.”

If you’re conservative, you will be deemed racist no matter what, so why waste time appeasing voters who disdain traditional values and the Constitution, and why pander to the Left that invents non-existent hate for profit?

Savage does not, that’s why he’s popular with millions of Americans:

People listen to me to get a different point of view.

 

Savage doesn’t douse his words in political PCP and wrap his views in Reince Priebus’s pink panties in order to pander to leftists who deserve a good kick in the political ass for destroying this nation from within.

Sugar-coating turns Americans off. People want reason with blunt honesty. For heaven’s sake, we are not Europe, despite what Democrats would have you think! This is America, the land of cowboys!

Have any of you ever seen a French cowboy?

Did that mental image scare any of you out of this Euro-Statist coma we are in?

In his best-seller Trickle Down Tyranny, Savage demonstrates how Lenin’s Statism is Obama’s vision for America:

[Lenin] thought that a nation could only grow more prosperous when it was controlled by a vanguard, an elite…No more haves and have-nots. No more private property. Only boundless prosperity. All Russia had to do was transfer its entire wealth to Lenin’s elite. The Leninist vision  had terrible consequences. If you didn’t want to relinquish your property, Leninists would take it.

Expansive government says “get sick and you are on your own without government, you’ll have to depend on yourself if you don’t have government to feed and cloth you!” But isn’t that what Americans know to be the best success–self-reliance without government dependence?

Savage points out:

Like the Leninists elite, they’ve [Soros, Obama, progressives, the EU] conned the world into believing that they’re looking after the interests of ‘the people’ when in fact they’re in the process of seizing control of the world’s financial assets at the people’s expense.

We’ve allowed everything we disdain to seize control. We put America’s interests last and our enemies first. Conservatives stopped fighting GOP interests while our economy crumbles and money is lost to our enemies.

Going along for the cause is Progressive. Even when it sticks like hard, raw peanut butter on their tonsils, leftists would rather die than admit Islam is evil and breeds terrorists and illegals are “turning the melting pot into a chamber pot.”

Note to Leftists and moderate Republicans: The chamber pot is not something California Food Stamp surfers smoke in the judge’s office. But you would have to read one of Dr. Savage’s many medical books to understand that.

Savage is unafraid to address the trampling of God and Biblical core values our founders upheld and practiced–absolute laws. Savage calls out the activist Supreme Court judges and those communist inbreed “Dogs of Hate” are abolishing our Judeo-Christian heritage with authorized Statist “Religion-Free Zones” in our schools.

 Dr. Savage believes in national sovereignty and is not afraid to admit it: Sovereignty is national pride, something American’s have been taught to hate, because Hitler, a leftist, misused nationalism for destructive means as all progressives do.

Our nation is threatened from within by leftists and moderate Republicans forging socialist deals with Democrats recreating a newly ordered American society like the European Union:

[O]ur federal officials seem to be allies of those international forces who would override our democracy…The emergence of an international social liberalism, which is at its core soft-communism, is a very real threat to the sovereignty of our nation. Forces from within and without our country continue to try and tell us that we are out of step with the rest of the world. The “sophisticated” Europeans laugh at us for our naiveté and our clinging to religion and family values. These Euro-socialists and their American counterparts see a terrible beauty struggling to be born, a beauty that would like to sweep away our dying civilization and bring us into an unbrave new world.

 

Let those vaporized “Aunt Pitty Pats” laugh at us! Who cares if we conservatives stand on the outside because we believe Americans should speak Standard English, illegal aliens should be deported, and Mitt Romney lost the election because 1. He’s a Democrat, and 2. If Democrats wanted a woman on their ballot, they would have put Hillary on the ticket!  

This is why people listen to the Savage Nation: Honesty. If Republicans spoke like Michael Savage, Democrats would put a fork in themselves.

In Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Dr. Savage spoke directly to liberals of something that now screams loudly of modern-day Republicans:

In the end, your tolerance of the intolerable is actually reflection of your loss of clarity; your tolerance of virtually everything and your “anything goes” attitude is not a mark of liberalism, it’s a mark of the degeneration of your ability to judge anything.

 

Furthermore:

While the left is marshalling their battalions to assault the pillars of America, the right is disorganized and provides little national leadership.

 

Conservatives, don’t let the GOP Machine and its supporters silence, gag, and shut out those defending our nationalism and liberty. As Joseph Farah says: “If we don’t all hang together, as they say, we’ll all hang separately.”

Stand up like Michael Savage and let progressives know what we patriots will do to them and their polices: Disorganize them with our battalions of liberty.

 

Dispensing with the ‘It’s the Law’ Rhetoric

Over the past few months, Progressives and Democrats who favor the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) – both elected and not – have insisted that the new and expanding entitlement will go forward as planned because, after all, it is “the law of the land.” When I ponder this statement I find myself less inclined to laugh and more inclined to succumb to sadness. That a faction that holds the Constitution in such disregard would so disingenuously foist the hypocrisy of this statement in defense of what is arguably an unconstitutional law, defies humor.

A cursory recollection of how this horrific, economy-killing piece of legislation came to be, not only illustrates a fundamental transgression of the spirit of American government, it shows how the Progressive movement executes an “ends justifies the means” political game plan. Because Progressives believe that the United States should provide socialized healthcare to every living being existing legally in the United States (and some who do not), they purposefully circumvented the legislative process, crafting the legislation with special interest groups – including labor unions, Progressive think tank operatives and foreign aligned special interest groups, behind closed doors and excluding members of the minority party. They then moved the legislation forward – at times threatening to “deem it passed” – along party lines, ignoring the protests of the minority party and howls of discontent from the American citizenry, and into law.

Today, as Republicans in the US House, which has the constitutionally mandated power of the purse, threaten to exclude any aspect of Obamacare from the funding of government operations – which is their constitutional right to do, Progressives and toady Democrats protest that the ACA is “the law of the land.” The proclamation would have even the slightest bit of weight if these same hypocrites always acquiesced to “the law of the land.” The fact is that they transgress the “law of the land” as a matter of policy; to advance an agenda that is often times anathema to the American system of government and the rule of law.

One can look back to the first Obama Administration’s abdication of the rule of law when newly installed Attorney General Eric Holder approved of political appointees at the Justice Department quashing the prosecution of New Black Panther Party members who executed one of the most egregious instances of voter intimidation in modern history. The “law of the land” mandated that the DoJ prosecute these constitutional transgressors to “the fullest extent” of the law. If “the law of the land” was so precious to these Obama-ite Progressives and Democrats, they would have been exploring ways to include charges of racial discrimination (as the perpetrators were Black and targeting White voters) and hate crimes. But, “the law of the land” wasn’t so important as to be followed in this instance.

One could look into the non-enforcement of immigration laws by the Obama Administration to evidence their selective support of “the law of the land.” For the entire tenure of Mr. Obama’s presidency we have witnessed border patrol members and their union representatives catalog a litany of directives emanating from DHS obfuscating efforts to secure our nation’s borders and hold to justice those who have broken our laws to exist here. Yet, in a post-911 world, when we hold proof-positive in our hands that Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda are working with Mexican and South American drug cartels, the “law of the land” isn’t so important to the Progressives and their sycophant Democrats so as to be honored.

The several Congressional investigations into operational and political malfeasance executed under the Obama Administration provide ample evidence that the Executive Branch Progressives have little use for “the law of the land” when it does not suit their need or the advancement of their ideological, globalist or social justice agendas. The US Constitution gives the power of oversight – including subpoena powers – to Congress. Yet today the Obama Administration routinely obstructs congressional investigators, usurping “the law of the land”:

▪ Fast & Furious saw the Holder Justice Department illegally facilitating the movement of banned weapons across the Mexican border. And even in the face of the deaths of US Border Patrol Agents, the Obama Administration – to this day – thwarts efforts to fully investigate the program.

▪ The politically motivated use of the Internal Revenue Service to target what can only be described as opposition groups, i.e. TEA Party, Conservative and Libertarian advocacy groups, stands as one of the more serious misuses of a federal agency to affect politics in the history of the country. In fact, it was the second count in the impeachment indictment leveled against former-Pres. Richard Nixon. Yet, the Obama Administration shows little interest in assisting congressional investigators in their pursuit of protecting the American citizenry from their own government’s unlawful actions. (Note to Mr. Obama…President Nixon at least had the nobility to resign).

▪ The expansion – not just the continuation – of the NSA domestic surveillance program arguably usurps the Fourth Amendment protections provided the citizenry, but under the guise of protecting the country, even some members of Congress who have Top Secret clearances are kept in the dark on the program by members of the Obama Administration.

▪ And as four brave Americans – Amb. Christopher Stevens, Ty Woods, Sean Smith & Glen Doherty – lay cold in their graves, exclusively because Mr. Obama and his Progressive crew couldn’t be exposed for their putting politics ahead of protecting American assets overseas; American soil in the form of Embassy grounds, the “most transparent” administration in American history hides behind anything that will give them cover so as not to act in the spirit of “the law of the land”; so as not to afford the justice “the law of the land” is owed those four dead Americans (Note to former-Secretary of State and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton: Yes, it does matter, to every American but the Progressive elected class, evidently).

But getting back to Obamacare being “the law of the land,” and the fact that these Progressive ideologues intend to inflict this economy-killing, divisive, wealth-redistributing program onto the American people, regardless of the fact that it has never – never – been popular with over half of the nation, and that it now falls well short of providing health insurance to “every American,” I have two questions:

1) If “the law of the land” is so very important to follow, then how is it that these same people ignore the fact that “the law of the land” allows the House of Representatives to refuse to fund the entitlement program?

2) If the “law of the land” is so sacrosanct then how can these Progressive elitist oligarchs decry any part of the US Constitution – the literal “law of the land” – as malleable; as subject to dictates of the day?

The truth be told, the only time “the law of the land” means anything to Progressives is when it serves their purpose. In any other case it is an edict to be scorned, rebuked, castigated and/or ignored. That Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the White House Communications Office and President Obama himself shamelessly hide behind the “It’s the law of the land” declaration in their defense of the legitimate House effort to save the country from this legislative mistake would be laughable if it weren’t so deadly serious.

So, let’s dispense with this rhetoric, shall we?

Rebuttal of Paul McLeary’s and Kingston Reif’s lies on nukes

142074.439nuclear_explosion

On June 26th, the leftist DefenseNews portal, owned by the Gannett company, published yet another biased, anti-nuclear weapons article which aims to present Barack Obama’s planned deep cut of America’s nuclear arsenal in a positive light and in which only a supporter of nuclear cuts is asked for opinion – while no opponent is asked to weigh in.

In that pathetic screed, the author decries the size of America’s nuclear arsenal, tries to assure the readers that Barack Obama’s new deep cuts of America’s deployed arsenal won’t harm US national security, and that Republicans are groundlessly opposing it.

He also quotes Republicans’ charges of Russian noncompliance with “a major arms control treaty”  and of Obama disarming America unilaterally as if they were outlandish, which they’re not.

Let’s deal with these issues one by one.

Firstly, and probably most importantly, RUSSIA HAS NOT CUT A SINGLE WARHEAD OR DELIVERY SYSTEM UNDER NEW START – because the treaty obligates ONLY the US, not Russia, to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal. It allows Russia to actually grow its arsenal – which it has done since New START’s ratification and will continue to do, as confirmed numerous times by Russian leaders, including President Putin and former Defense Minister Anatoliy Syerdukov. Thus, New START amounts to America’s unilateral disarmament.

Secondly, Obama did not say in Berlin he’d do the cuts by treaty. He – like his administration’s officials in their Congressional testimonies last year and in pre- and post-Berlin speech remarks to the press – left the door open to unilateral reductions in America’s nuclear deterrent.

So those who accuse Obama of engaging in America’s unilateral disarmament are exactly right. Obama IS unilaterally disarming America. He has also unilaterally withdrawn nuclear warheads and nuclear-capable Tomahawk TLAM missiles from US submarines. That is unilateral disarmament.

He’s also woefully underfunding the modernization of America’s nuclear deterrent. That is also unilateral disarmament – by neglect.

Thirdly, yes, Russia IS violating a major arms reduction treaty – two, actually. The first is the INF treaty, which prohibits the development, testing, production, or possession of any ground-launched BMs or CMs with a range between 550 and 5500 kms. Russia has recently tested a pseudo-ICBM (really an IRBM) called the Yars-M at a range of 2,000 kms – a blatant violation of the INF Treaty. Dr Mark B. Schneider, an expert on nuclear weapons, has been warning of such development since at least 2012. This was reported yesterday by the Washington Free Beacon’s Bill Gertz.

Russia is also violating the adapted CFE Treaty by possessing in Europe far more tanks, IFVs, APCs, and artillery pieces than the treaty allows.

How can America negotiate or sign any arms limitation treaties with Russia when Moscow blatantly violates the treaties it has already signed and ratified?

Fourthly, the cut Obama wants to make – to a mere 1,000 warheads – will gravely undermine the security of America, its allies, and the world at large, contrary to his and the rest of the disarmament crowd’s lie that a weaker America translates into a more secure world.

1,000 deployed warheads are way too few to deter Russia (which has at least 1,500 deployed strategic and around 1,300 nondeployed strategic warheads, as well as 4,000-6,000 deployed and nondeployed tactical warheads, and the mean to deliver all of these warheads) or China (which has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, warheads according to Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin (SMF, ret.) and former DOD chief nuclear strategist Professor Philip Karber). On top of that, the US has to deter North Korea and Iran and provide a nuclear umbrella to over 30 allies who depend on it for their security and their very existence.

If the US makes further cuts to its deterrent – especially ones on the scale demanded by Obama – America’s allies will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Already 66.5% of South Koreans want to do so, and Japan has a facility ready to produce enough fissile material for 3,600 warheads in a year if need be. Persian Gulf states will almost certainly “go nuclear”.

Thus, as the WSJ has correctly observed, Obama’s legacy will be a world with more nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed states in it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578555552707034238.html

Other than Obama’s America, NOBODY ELSE is disarming themselves. Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are all growing and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. France and Britain are not growing, but they’re modernizing. Iran is racing towards nuclear weapon acquisition.

A world without nuclear weapons is not “distant” or “aspirational”. It’s completely unrealistic and utterly impossible – now and for the indefinite future. Period.

Kingston Reif’s claim that Obama’s cuts would be no problem because the US would retain some warheads in reserve is a phony assurance. By his admission, most of these warheads would need weeks or even months to be reactivated. Yet, in the event of a nuclear first strike by an enemy, there would be only half an hour to arm America’s ballistic missiles and to launch them. America’s retaliatory strike would have to be conducted in less than an hour, not days, let alone weeks or months.

The conservative Heritage Foundation estimates, based on a holistic study, that the US needs between 2,700 and 3,000 deployed nuclear warheads.

And let’s be honest, neither Reif nor his extremely leftist group, the CLW, want America to be strong or secure. They don’t believe in nuclear deterrence; they utterly reject it.

The author laments the size of America’s nuclear arsenal, but it pales in comparison to Russia’s nuclear arsenal – 6,800 warheads according to the FAS, 8,800 warheads according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Of that, 2,800 are strategic warheads, the FAS says.

The only advantage the US still has is in deployed strategic warheads – some 1,700 compared to Russia’s 1,500. But under New START, the US will have to cut its deployed arsenal while Russia is allowed to grow its own.

How biased th DefenseNews article is is best illustrated by the fact that only the representative of a pro-nuclear-disarmament organization was invited to comment, while no one from the numerous organizations opposing nuclear cuts was asked to weigh in. So that article is one-sided and irredeemably biased.

http://www.defensenews.com/comments/article/20130626/DEFREG02/306260013/Congress-Pushes-Back-Against-White-House-Nukes-Syria

“MAY” – The One Little Word That Changes Everything



obamacare fallout
Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, in July 2009, said, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.” Now, in July 2013, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has interjected one little word into Obama’s statement: “MAY“. The HHS created and controlled website “www.healthcare.gov” has this statement: “Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor.”   [emphasis mine]   What happened, Kathleen, to Obama’s one little word: “Period“?

Obama even offered a guarantee. He said, “Here is a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

Then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi, (of “So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t.” fame), and Senator Harry Reid, in 2010, rammed ObamaCare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) down our throats. Obama signed the bill into law fourteen days after Pelosi made her remark.

Obama also said, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” But (and there’s always a “but” when Obama is involved), Healthcare.gov has this statement: “Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider.”   [emphasis mine]   There’s that word may again. But wait! We may be misunderstanding Obama here, taking him at his literal word. Obama said, ” No one will take it away. No matter what.” But Healthcare.gov says, “Depending on the type of policy you buy…[.]” So, Obama can still make his “No one will take it away.” claim if you choose another plan (perhaps in order to get similar or any healthcare coverage and/or to keep your doctor). I predict that this is the “reasoning” that Obama (and Reid, and Pelosi, and ObamaCare proponents) hides behind. Is Obama quibbling? Your call!

Again, but wait. We got this from White House deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle in 2011:

“… the president wasn’t saying the legislation would guarantee that everyone can keep his or her preferred plan, just that the legislation wouldn’t force anyone to change. What the president promised is that under health care reform, that he would make it more possible for people to have choices in these (health insurance) exchanges.”

Unbelievable. Was DeParle prescient, anticipating what was to come? Obama is getting more and more like Clinton: every word he utters must be carefully parsed. Why should we believe anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth if others come behind him and say we should not take what he says literally?

Pelosi, in March 2010, said, “We’re prepared for every eventuality, including success.” Well…, Nancy, it seems that you were not prepared for the one little word may, but you somehow forgot Obama’s use of the word period.

The word period sounds unequivocal to me. The word may is an equivocal word. Which is it, Nancy? Try as you may (and, sadly, in November 2012, you succeeded), you can’t have it both ways.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

« Older Entries Recent Entries »