Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “Liberal”

POLL: MAJORITY WANT BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from http://www.breitbart.com/ :

 

Posted by:MATTHEW BOYLE


A poll released by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell and Republican pollster John McLaughlin shows that a vast majority of American voters want a special select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. However, House Speaker John Boehner is denying them a shot at it.

WHY is he stopping it ?

Secure America Now president Allen Roth, whose organization commissioned the poll, points to it as a major reason why he signed a letter to Boehner sent Monday that demands he stop obstructing the investigation and install a select committee.

“In a recent national poll, conducted by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin, 62% of Americans say it is important that Congress create a special committee to get to the truth about Benghazi,” Roth told Breitbart news in an email over the weekend before the letter became public. “A large majority of House Republicans agree. The American people understand that if Republican leaders allow the Obama Administration to cover up its negligence that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans, it would be a crime. We will continue to apply pressure on House leadership until they create a select committee.”

Roth’s group’s poll was released in late October and showed that 62 percent of voters believe that congressional leaders should create a select committee on Benghazi, whereas only 32 percent think such a procedure is not important. More specifically, 83 percent of GOP voters and 58 percent of independents support a select committee, while 50 percent of Democratic voters oppose a select committee. A majority of self-identified moderate voters, 53 percent, want a select committee as well.

Conservative leader Ginni Thomas, who also signed the letter to Boehner, told Breitbart News: “Americans can see John Boehner is not serious about using the constitutional powers of investigation to get at the truth of Benghazi. On the anniversary of September 11 in 2012, Americans should have been rescued in a firefight started by radical Islamists, not left alone while the president prepares to go to a fundraiser the next day in Las Vegas.”

“Republicans are playing ‘small ball legislating’ when America wants professional investigations and accountability from an administration that is running circles around Republicans,” Thomas continued. “If Republicans with gavels don’t do oversight capably, garnering the respect of the Obama administration, at some point, Republicans are as complicit in the scandal. We are approaching that deadline.”

The Wrath of Michelle O Strikes Again


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

The coming weekend will be a painful one for Desiree Rogers, the beautiful former White House Social Secretary  who discovered that outshining Michelle Obama is a very, very bad idea. After following the Obamas from Chicago to DC and entering the history books as the first African-American White House Social Secretary, Ms. Rogers appeared to revel in her status as Michelle’s Chicago buddy, and demonstrated a fashion sense that took advantage of her naturally slender frame and role as social gatekeeper to become (however briefly) possibly the most glamorous African American woman in  the country.

Michelle and Desiree in happier White House times

If Oprah was too fat to remain Michelle’s buddy, Desiree’s problem may have been being too slender.

That gig did not last very long, of course. Desiree was given her walking papers after 14 months, though allowed to “step down” so as to retain a shred of dignity in the wake of her termination.  Claiming a role as booster of the Obama brand and letting it be known that she  holds the key to Brand Obama was probably not all that smart, especially for a woman who holds a Harvard MBA, where they do teach about managing personal relationships.  Rogers also claimed a major role in the failed Obama initiative to bring the Olympics to Chicago, an embarrassing rejection that absolutely could not be blamed on Barack Obama, even though he traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for the honor only to not even make second place.

The pain of exile from the White House must have been eased by the next job she assumed, CEO of Johnson Publications, the black media empire that includes Ebony and Jet, and, most importantly, the BET Cable television empire. But for all her status in Chicago as head of the largest black-owned enterprise in the city and the country, Desiree is being frozen out this weekend at the wedding of the decade, as far as the Chicago black social scene is concerned. Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times reports:

The president is going.

The first lady is going.

First daughters Sasha and Malia will be there.

But Desiree Rogers, the first African-American to become the White House Social Secretary, has been dissed.

Translation: Rogers has not been invited to the backyard Kenwood wedding this weekend for the daughter of the ultimate White House insider/Rogers’ former “closer-than-glue” best friend, White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett.

For those who do not follow the ins-and-outs of Versailles-on-the-Potomac, Valerie Jarrett is widely regarded as THE most powerful White House advisor of all. Former Obama chiefs of staff Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley crossed her, and both are back in Chicago. Incidentally, they aren’t invited to the wedding either.

Sneed explains the depth of the diss:

“Valerie and Desiree were once very close; Sunday dinner mates; part of a powerful clique of African-American Chicago women, which also included Johnson Publishing chairman Linda Johnson Rice,” said a top source familiar with the group. “Michelle Obama was not part of that elite Chicago clique.”

The wedding snub is more than social; Rogers watched Jarrett’s daughter grow up.

The snub contains salt; Rogers’ ex-husband and close friend, financial guru John Rogers, has been invited.

The former social diva is also not on the list of African-American royalty – and members of the new Obama social order – gathering Friday night before the wedding for a backyard barbecue at the Kenwood home of attorney/developer Allison Davis; and the get-together at the president’s Kenwood home, where he will stay while entertaining pals Marty Nesbitt and Eric Whitaker.

Allison Davis, by the way, gave Barack Obama his only job as a lawyer, where he worked for such prize clients as Tony Rezko, now a guest of the federal prison system. Davis’s home, where the barbecue will be held, is just blocks from the mansion purchased by Barack and Michelle with considerable financial assistance from Rezko, a move the president now calls “bone-headed.”

Does this all matter? Is it merely catty, trivial, gossipy trash unworthy of a serious political website? In a more serious administration, where cabinet secretaries actually met with the president more than once or twice and exercised substantive responsibilities instead of “czars” personally beholden to the first family, where well defined roles and responsibilities marked the White House bureaucracy, and where the first lady confined her role to symbolic activities and advocacy, the answer would be yes.

But the Obama White House is a different sort of animal entirely. Like a decadent  monarchy, the favor of the potentate and the potentate’s wife count for much too much in the Obama administration, and the social life, celebrity, and glamour of life at the top seem to eat up far more time than convening cabinet meetings.

We are reduced to reading tea leaves in the social calendar to understand the power dynamics of our national leadership. Another sign of an incipient banana republic.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/the_wrath_of_michelle_o_

strikes_again.html#ixzz2pml5GHhf

One in three lawmakers wants to repeal cuts to military pensions


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://thehill.com/blogs

Posted by:Jeremy Herb

Getty Images

More than 150 House members and 35 senators have signed onto efforts to repeal the cuts to military pensions included in the budget deal signed last month.

Roughly a third of lawmakers in both chambers have sponsored or co-sponsored 15 different bills. All the measures seek, one way or another, to repeal the reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for working-age military retirees.

The flurry of bills and number of co-sponsors highlights the sizable bipartisan opposition to the military retirement cuts that were included in the budget deal reached by Budget Chairs Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

But none of the bills introduced has identified a true bipartisan “pay-for” to replace the retirement cuts, raising doubts about the chances of any of them passing.

The only legislation that has attracted significant bipartisan support does not replace the $6 billion that was saved in the budget deal through the military retirement cut.

“People are allowed to go out there and say what they want, but it is not going away,” said a leading conservative strategist who is a deficit hawk. “How are they going to pay for it going away?”

The budget agreement signed into law last month provided $63 billion in sequester relief over two years and achieved $85 billion in deficit reduction, including $6 billion from reducing COLAs by 1 percentage point below inflation for working-age military retirees under age 62.

The military pension cuts attracted swift condemnation from service and veterans’ organizations, who have launched a full-court lobbying press to get Congress to reverse the provision.

The effort has spawned more than a dozen bills. In aggregate, those measures have been backed by 94 House Republicans and 64 House Democrats, 12 Republican senators and 23 Democratic senators.

Many of the lawmakers voted for the overall budget bill that quickly cleared both chambers last month.

Even so, the bills that offset the $6 billion savings do not appear likely to attract bipartisan support, making them long-shots to pass both the Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House.

Democrats in both chambers have signed onto measures that would replace the retirement cuts by closing offshore tax loopholes for corporations, a non-starter for Republicans.

The GOP bills target a number of cost-cutting issues. They would prevent illegal immigrants from claiming a child tax credit, make cuts to the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, replace the COLA cuts with the Pentagon’s unobligated balances and stop aid to Egypt and Pakistan.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) introduced a bill to restore the savings through limiting Saturday mail delivery.

No Democrats have co-sponsored any of those measures, with the exception of Rep. John Barrow (Ga.) backing the child tax credit pay-for in Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick’s (R-Pa.) bill.

The bill with the most support was introduced by House Veterans Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), which has 95 co-sponsors, including 32 Democrats.

That measure simply repeals the $6 billion cut to military pensions. But defense observers are skeptical Congress would pass legislation to undo deficit reduction already in place.

One senior defense lobbyist said the budget deal included all of the “low-hanging fruit” when it came to deficit reduction, making it unlikely that the COLA cuts would easily be replaced.

The military retirement cuts were one part of a carefully crafted deal, which also included reductions for civilian federal worker benefits.

“It’s all political in an election year,” the lobbyist said of the repeal bills.

“The ones the Democrats are offering to close corporate tax loopholes — Republicans are never going to go for that… The same thing on Republican side with credits for illegal immigrants. They know it’s not going to fly with the Dems.”

BOHICA the military takes it again.

House and Senate leaders have not said whether they plan to bring up any bills to restore the military benefits cuts.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) did not include the military pension issue in his January legislative agenda. A Senate leadership aide said retirement benefits legislation would not be considered next week, and could not elaborate beyond that.

One House aide said that leadership may be waiting before making a decision on the retirement benefits to see how strongly the issue resonates back in lawmakers’ districts.

“If members come back and go to leadership and say they’re really getting hit on this, leadership might be in a mood to adjust it,” the aide said. “If they come back and there’s not as much passion behind it, that tells you it will be a completely different story.”

There is likely to be at least one change made to the retirement benefit cuts: exempting medically retired veterans.

There have been an additional four bills introduced to address that issue, including from Murray. Both Murray and Ryan say that disabled veterans were included in the budget deal due to a “technical error” and they want to quickly fix the problem.

A list of the various bills offered to repeal the military-pensions cut can be found here.

— Erik Wasson contributed.

http://thehill.com/blogs

Alabama Mom’s ObamaCare Horror Story Gives America a Glimpse of Government-Run Healthcare


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.ijreview.com/

 

Posted by:Emily Hulsey

Alabama Mom’s ObamaCare Horror Story Gives America a Glimpse of Government-Run Healthcare

 

Many of us can identify with the frustrating experience that Karri Kinder, a mother of two from Auburn, Alabama, has had with Obamacare. She penned this open letter to share her story. Shout-out to Yellowhammer News for the article:
An Open Letter to the Obama Administration and American Citizens:
My family’s journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013. I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us. We are a family of four, with two little boys’ ages seven years old and three years old. My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively. We have been with the same two companies for those years. We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us. We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.
On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama. When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement. Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband. So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us. This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month. I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this. Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly. I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kid’s college, our retirement, etc. I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month – how in the world could this help the economy too?
Throughout the month of October we read everything we could on what our plan would cover, and tried to get the information we needed about the ACA. I was also blown away when I realized that my son’s medical care, he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), would cost us so much more out of pocket than it was currently costing us. My son has to go to his doctor every other month for his care. If we need to see a therapist we do that monthly, so you see on top of the premiums there are other out of pocket cost we have to factor in. He is also on medication that he takes daily. His medicine is a life saver for him and helps him function like a normal seven year old, without it he can’t focus, his grades slip and his mind literally goes back to the mind of a three or four year old. When he was first put on his medicine his reading went up 20 points and he went from writing one to two sentences to paragraphs, all in the course of a week. He is a straight A student and very bright, but without the proper medical care that could slip away from him. Under our new plan for 2014 we would need to pay a $55.00 co-pay, and then it would be covered at 80 percent once we reached his deductible, which would be $2,000 individual $4,000 family. Out of pocket max numbers are $6,350 individual and $12,700 family. All of this is enough to make anyone’s head spin. We were then forced to look at other options as none of this was affordable for our family.
I started to dig deeper into healthcare.gov. I was hearing all the horror stories through the news about the subpar website. I was reading right off their healthcare.gov Facebook page about other people’s terrible experiences trying to get coverage. Then the government announces that they are going to be working on the site and making it a better experience as well as making it more secure. They had already had three years to make this happen but they said would need the month of November to get it running right. So I waited patiently for them to get the site running so I could see if we would qualify for the subsidy and continue our health insurance through that route.
December 6, 2013 I went to healthcare.gov and started our application. The process took me over two hours to complete. Once it was completed it came back with our results. The results were that my husband and I qualified. That my three year old qualified for All Kids and that my seven year old did not qualify for anything through the exchange (ACA). I was so confused, how could a seven year old not qualify for a subsidy? I was also confused on why they wanted me to enroll one of my children in All Kids? So, I called the number they provided to speak to a representative. I was on hold for 20 minutes when a woman answered and offered to help me with the results. She told me that it is coming back that my seven year old son did not qualify and the only thing I could do was to file an appeal. I asked her a few more questions about how this could have happened, and I was told “she does not know and that all I can do is file an appeal”. She was reading her responses to me right off of a chart that I am sure they are given. So, I ended my conversation with her and proceeded to try to wrap my head around what was happening.
I decided to call back, this time I waited 15 minutes and spoke to a very nice gentleman who seemed to have an understanding for how the system was working. He looked up the results and said “this can’t be right, let’s start over and do an application over the phone”. So again I went through the application process. The results came back the exact same, we all qualified for something except my seven year old son. The gentleman could not understand how this could be happening and assured me it had to be a “glitch” in the system. He placed me on hold so he could speak with his supervisor on how to fix this error. I waited several minutes and when he came back he said “there was nothing more they could do tonight”. He said “we are sending your application to two different departments and that one of the departments would get back to me through a phone call with a fix to this problem”. He also told me “it could take 2-5 days but that I would receive a phone call when they had closed my case”.
So I waited until Tuesday December 10, 2013, which was day four and called them back. I was then told it would be 2-5 business days and if I had not heard from them at that time to call back. So that is what I did, I waited till 9:00 pm on that Friday December 13, 2013 with no phone call. I called Sunday December 15th, 2013 and spoke with my 3rd supervisor who told me “they were very sorry that I had not received a phone call and they were messaging the two departments to give me a call the following day”. He also said to go ahead and file with All Kids in my state because even though they send that information to them, they have no idea when they will receive it. So Monday I went and applied for All Kids for my children, it was a similar application to the healthcare.gov site. I called them to verify that they received my application and was told they cannot access it till sometime in January. They said once they could access it that they would be in touch and if the kids qualified the coverage would retro act to January 1, 2014. So that was a little bit of good news.
So here we are December 22, 2013, the day before the December 23rd deadline to sign up through the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. I decide I will call one last time to see what they can tell me about coverage, since I never received a phone call after my last conversation with a supervisor. I waited on hold for 1 hour and 15 minutes. I asked to speak with a supervisor and I was transferred. The supervisor pulled my file and was talking to me when she must have accidentally pressed a button and we got disconnected. I thought for sure she would call me back. That is one of the first things they ask for is your phone number. I did not receive a call back, so I call back and have to be placed on hold again to speak to someone. I waited another hour and a half before I get connected with a supervisor. She pulls up my file and tells me “there is nothing they can do and I have to wait the 90 days they have to contact me through the appeals process”. The supervisor tells me “that this whole time I have been told wrong by numerous people and that I should have been called back but that the two departments could do nothing for me”. I just have to wait the 90 days. I asked her, “so yet again an error, due to no fault of my own, has occurred all these times I have been calling and speaking with people and no one can really do anything”? She said “yes that is correct, I am sorry you have been told something different but that is all I can tell you”.
I have never been treated so poorly by any insurance company in my whole life. I have never experienced such terrible customer service in all my years on this earth. I can’t imagine how long a company would last in this country if they followed the same protocol as the ACA/Health Insurance Marketplace does. Most companies can fix a glitch in their systems pretty easily, or can connect you to someone who can. Not the ACA/ Health Insurance Marketplace, you spend all that time on hold to just be told, so sorry but you have to wait for someone to get back to you in a 90 day time span.
What is the most sickening thing to me is that we have been forced into the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. We wanted to continue our coverage through BSBC and pay as we always had been. But, we found out that option would not be affordable under the new Act, which is how we were forced into the Exchange. Furthermore, not only were we forced into the Exchange, but then forced again to submit an application to ALL Kids for our children. I just don’t understand how we go from being hard working middle class family who provides everything for our family to where we are today. I feel like everything that my husband and I have worked hard for is for nothing. I pray each night that we will get something resolved with our “glitch” in the system so our children will have health insurance coverage in January and by the time I have to purchase my son’s $400 a month ADHD medicine.
I really don’t know how our government can allow this to be taking place. What if something happens and one of my boys breaks an arm, or God forbid something worse? They don’t have insurance, so I guess we will then be paying the hospital monthly if that happens. We are almost completely debt free currently and now all I see is very large medical bills in our future until the government can fix the issues with the ACA/Exchange. I would really like them to rename the Affordable Care Act, because from where I am sitting it is anything but affordable or caring for my family.
Sincerely,
Karri Kinder

Was President Obama high on coke while Benghazi burned?


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:Dean Chambers

benghaziattack

While our consulate in Benghazi was attacked during the night of September 11 of last year, our fearless leader was allegedly hiding away somewhere getting “high as a kite” on cocaine. This is the speculation of Kevin DuJan, a self-described “gay conservative political analyst” writing for a publication called HillBuzz. DuJan states that his claim, which he appears to make based on knowledge and experience of drug addicts, explains the president being missing for most of the evening during the attack on Benghazi.

DuJan explains his theory, writing, “If you’ve ever known anyone who is a drug addict, you’d see it’s obvious that Barack Obama was high on cocaine the night of Benghazi; it is the only logical explanation for his disappearance and the White House’s refusal to comment on what he was doing at the time. Since this was a night of great crisis for our country, the only logical reason that the White House won’t explain where the president was is if this man was high as a kite on illegal narcotics at the time.”

DuJan also suggests the president sought out gay entertainment when he left the next day for Las Vegas, writing that Obama was, “jetting off to fabulous Las Vegas for a fun-and-games fundraiser event he had scheduled there (where, it also should be noted, not only Chippendales but also Thunder From Down Under male revues are regularly held…which certainly establishes the appeal of heading to Las Vegas instead of managing a national crisis back in Washington for this particular president).

DuJan cited an article by Rich Lowry in Politico about the time-line of events the night of the attack and the next day. Obama was seen, “sober on 9/11/12 at 5pm EST when he met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, DuJan writes, “I have never been able to shake the feeling that Barack Obama was woefully disappointed when he learned that Gen. Dempsey has nothing to do with either marijuana or penises in his capacity as the Chairman of the “Joint” Chiefs of “Staff”. But, I presume he would not have done cocaine before meeting with these two military men. Obama appears to have been still functional and ambulatory at 5pm that day.”

DuJan says Obama found out US Ambassador Chris Stevens died and disappeared to somewhere to go get high on cocaine. Obama was allegedly not seen again until 10 P.M. that night when he spoke with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the phone. Obama spoke at 10:35 A.M. The next day when he made the statement about the attack on Benghazi being caused by the YouTube video.

Suggesting again the gay theme as well as cocaine use, DuJan wrote, “After reading Lowry’s article, my good friend Justine in California emailed me to ask whether I thought Obama was having sex with Reggie Love during the “missing hours” and if that’s where he was. Justine was an actress and model in Los Angeles back in the late-1970s and ran in the same circles as friends of closeted gay men like Rock Hudson…so her first instinct with Obama and Benghazi is that he and Reggie Love were getting at it and Obama didn’t want to be disturbed.”

Despite speculating about Obama having gay tendencies, DuJan stated he believes the idea of getting high on cocaine that night is a much stronger explanation for Obama’s absense during those hours. DuJan explained, “once you take drugs you are pretty much on another astral plane for however long it takes for the drugs to leave your system. I’ve sadly watched a lot of incredible people in the nightlife scene ruin their lives with cocaine over the years, and once these people got high they stayed high until the drugs metabolized enough for them to function. In fact, a few years ago I dated a day trader here in Chicago who (unbeknownst to me at first) would use cocaine in the evening when he came home from work…and he’d process the drugs in his system enough to be back at his office early the next morning.”

DuJan offered to retract his story in exchange for an explanation from the president on why he was missing during those hours, writing, “I would gladly retract this story if the White House would sufficiently explain Barack Obama’s whereabouts during those missing hours and prove he was not out of his mind on cocaine at the time (or gluttonously engaged in gay sex, as my friend Justine believes).”

DuJan closed his article with this question: “Do you think it’s better for the White House to say the president’s location is “irrelevant” or for them to admit “the president was high on cocaine and/or having gay sex in his private quarters”?”

Note: This article was originally published at Examiner.com, and after an apparent complaint, they exercised their right to unpublish the story. So we have decided to republish the story here, uncensored.

 

Hillary Clinton Faces Criminal Charges In Egypt


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/

 

Posted by:B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE

Photo Credit: Aaron Webb Creative Commons

According to a recent report by World Net Daily, expected 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is embroiled in yet another international scandal. Still reeling from what many perceive as a botched response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, reports indicate the former secretary of state is being investigated by Egypt’s attorney general.

Hisham Barakat’s criminal complaint against Clinton alleges she conspired with the wife of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi – and the Muslim Brotherhood – to encourage rebels in the nation.

According to a translator, Morsi’s wife, Naglaa Mahmoud, reportedly claims to have a “treasure trove of secrets from the White House,” indicating Clinton “fears my wrath.”

Mahmoud goes on to confirm she “will not speak about Huma Abedin,” a former aide with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Sources indicate Mahmoud works with Abedin’s mother, Saleha, as a leader of the Muslim Sisterhood.

As Morsi heads to trial, the actions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will likely be central themes. As the lamest of all presidential ducks, Obama’s sullied reputation can’t suffer much more as a result of charges filed against him.

The added controversy, however, is the last thing a fledgling Clinton campaign needs.

Mahmoud seems convinced Clinton will be “looking for the support of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood” in her pursuit of the Oval Office.

“Hillary depends on us tremendously to help her succeed in the coming presidential elections,” Mahmoud reportedly confirmed, “just as we helped Barack Obama win twice.”

Clinton is obviously desperate to retain power despite the frequent missteps she made during her short tenure as secretary of state. Millions of outraged Americans will not let her scandalous behavior be forgotten in the years approaching 2016.

With the stage set for another big midterm win for Republicans, the continued derailment of the Democrat Party’s presidential frontrunner only makes the conservative cause that much more attractive to voters.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clinton-faced-charges-egypt/#Fxjt7mKXhmAdmv3k.99

Saudis lament, ‘we have been stabbed in the back by Obama’


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:FoxNews.com

 

Posted by:Richard Miniter

Obama lying more

Arabs don’t trust Obama either.

As 2013 ends, President Obama has lost credibility with many people who trusted him at the start of the year. Thanks to the Healthcare.gov debacle, polls find support for the president among women and independents has dropped to the lowest ebb of his presidency. Obama’s words — promising Americans they could keep their doctors under his health care plan — didn’t match his deeds.

Surprisingly, the same thing is happening on the other side of the world among Arabs in the Middle East and for the same reason.

Too often, Obama’s speeches and actions don’t match.

“We are glad the Americans are here,” said Ahmed al-Ibrahim, an adviser to some of Saudi Arabia’s royals and officials, when I met with him recently, “but we fear that the president has lost credibility after Syria.”

Astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain.

The Saudi official is referring to Obama’s “red line” vow of military action if the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad did and Obama didn’t. Saudi officials were stunned.

Next came the revelation earlier this year that Obama was secretly negotiating with Iran, the mortal enemy of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials in both nations have told me that they simply don’t believe that the president can sweet-talk the mullahs out of the weapons they have coveted for years.

“The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years,” al-Ibrahim said. “We feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama.”

“Every time that Obama had to choose between his enemies and his friends, he always chose his enemies,” he said. “We don’t know what he’s putting in his tea.”

Al-Ibrahim also pointed to Obama’s “dangerous inaction” during violent Iran-backed uprisings in Bahrain, and now his negotiations with Iran, and his separate, secret negotiations with Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah. Since American officials cannot legally negotiate with terrorist groups and Hezbollah is a State Department-listed terror organization, the administration has been using British diplomats to carry messages to Hezbollah. The Obama administration reportedly favors a “warm up to a direct relationship in the future” with Hezbollah.

Obama is sending conflicting messages. In Washington, the president says negotiations are all we need to meet the Iranian threat. He issued a rare veto threat to try to halt tougher sanctions against Iran.

At the same time, in the Middle East, the president has dispatched more than 40 U.S. Navy vessels (including a carrier-strike group) and sent his secretary of defense to detail America’s vast military assets in the region.

Speaking to Arab defense ministers, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel itemized America’s military commitment to immediately respond to Iranian aggression:

• More than 35,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the theater;
• Even after exiting Iraq, the U.S. Army maintains more than 10,000 forward-deployed soldiers as well as tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters;
• America’s most advanced fighter jets, including F-22s, are deployed less than an hour’s flight time from Iran;
• American surveillance aircraft, ground listening stations, satellites, and sea patrols continue to scan for threats across the region;
• America’s missile defense systems–on ground, sea, and air–remain on high alert. That includes the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile defense ships, Patriot missile batteries, and phased-array radars.

“The Department of Defense will work with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on better integration of its members’ missile defense capabilities. The United States continues to believe that a multilateral framework is the best way to develop interoperable and integrated regional missile defense. Such defenses are the best way to deter and, if necessary, defeat coercion and aggression,” Hagel told the Gulf News on Dec.18.

With little fanfare, Obama has also quietly lifted the ban on selling sensitive missile-defense technology to Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies living within reach of Iran’s new Shahab-3 missiles. The Shahab-3’s range is 1,242 miles–placing Israel and most of America’s Arab allies within striking distance.

However, Obama’s quiet efforts to provide new missile defenses and renewed security guarantees may be too little, too late.

The Saudis are now seeking their own military arrangements because they no longer trust the U.S. The GCC, a regional alliance of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, recently announced the creation of a joint military force based in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. 

“There will be a unified command of around 100,000 members, God willing,” Prince Miteb bin Abdullah told reporters. This new force represents a massive expansion of the 30,000-strong Peninsula Shield force.

“We no longer believe that America alone can safeguard our freedom from Iranian aggression,” said al-Ibrahim, “that’s why we are expanding our forces and integrating our missile defenses with our neighbors.”

He added, “the world should understand that the GCC will not stay quiet and leave our member-states vulnerable to bad actors and bad deals in the region. It is our duty to protect our region.”

And now, astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions last weekend in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain where thousands of U.S. troops and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet are based.

“The president has shown that he can take action when he chooses to. He chose not to act after the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but as soon as things started to go wrong in South Sudan, Obama jumped on it,” said al-Ibrahim.

On Saturday, Obama dispatched three CV-22 Osprey aircraft, the sort that can fly like an airplane and an helicopter, to South Sudan to evacuate Americans caught in ongoing violence in the city of Bor. The aircraft came under small arms fire and were forced to retreat as they attempted to land. Four U.S. service members were injured in the attempted evacuation. American citizens were rescued successfully on Sunday using civilian and U.N. helicopters.

In his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, the first American president raised in a Muslim land came to offer a bold promise: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Four and a half years later, Arab leaders like al-Ibrahim say that “mutual interest” is sundered and “mutual respect” squandered.
If the Saudi exasperation sounds familiar, it is because it is the same tone you hear in Tel Aviv and in Washington.

GENERAL CALLS FOR MASSIVE MARCH ON WASHINGTON


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

‘We need to get off our derrieres. … Hope is not a strategy’

author-image  obamafrowns

Video

The retired American military commander who earlier said in a statement released to WND that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.

The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials no.

The result was that the Egyptian Muslim Brother was removed from power and then-President Mohammed Morsi was removed from office, Vallely explained,

His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.

He was asked whether America can be restored as the shining light on the hill for freedom when the electoral process, which resulted in two presidencies for Obama in 2008 and 2012, “are known to be corrupt.”

Vallely said the absence of leadership in the White House and Congress makes it difficult, and he said, “I’m not even sure our traditional process will straighten our government out in time to save us.”

And he said processes like impeachment simply won’t happen.

Then he suggested the Egyptian model, and he said millions of Americans need to “stand up” to Washington “within the next 12 months.”

He said doing nothing is not an option, because Washington won’t fix itself and “hope is not a strategy.”

“We need something … a no confidence vote,” he suggested. And perhaps legislation that could create a national recall process.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington,” he said. “Make citizens arrests.”

He said when there are those who are “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws,” it should not be overlooked.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

Vallely has been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other things, they cite the Obamacare law, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

In a statement earlier to WND, Vallely said a vote of no confidence could be used.

The founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, said:

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.’”

Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”

Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.

Vallely believes impeachment likely wouldn’t lead to conviction and doesn’t solve the problem, anyway.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”


The Constitution can be amended without going through Congress, he pointed out, but it would take too much time, “a luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic.”

Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!

“That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. … Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route,” he said.

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama’s broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

  • His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)
  • His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
  • To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)
  • To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)
  • And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
  • His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)
  • To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)
  • His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
  • To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
  • To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)
  • To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
  • His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
  • Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)
  • To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)
  • To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)
  • To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)
  • That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
  • And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
  • And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)
  • Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
  • And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Vallely quoted commentator Andrew C. McCarthy, who said that “absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. … and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”

Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a “recall” at the federal level, “there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all the reasons stated in such a resolution.”

He warned of growing “tyrannical centralized rule” without action.

There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution?

“Obama is still the president, and his Cabinet and appointees still remain in power. … Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” Vallely said.

“When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

Rep Trey Gowdy

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley’s concerns earlier this month.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

See the Hannity segment:

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/u-s-general-calls-for-massive-march-on-congress-white-house/#THccKGm3xIZCQBpl.99

 

Report: Healthcare.gov couldn’t verify Barack Obama’s identity


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.examiner.com

 

Posted by:Joe Newby

Healthcare.gov could not verify Barack Obama's identity.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

December 24, 2013

President Obamanot exactly leading by example — was finally signed up for Obamacare in a symbolic move showing support for his own law. But, Fox News’ Ed Henry reported Monday, the healthcare.gov system couldn’t verify his identity, so his staff had to sign him up in person.

The reason, Henry said, is that Obama’s personal information is not in particular government data bases.

“So healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough,” Henry said.

I would think that, Social Security database would be used?

If so why wasn’t his SSN# showing up?

So Obama himself did not sign up for healthcare. Instead, an official told Politico that his staff went to the D.C. exchange in person to sign him up.

“Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”

“Granted, he waited until the very last second to do it despite pleading with people for months not to wait,” a post at the conservative blog Hot Air said. “And sure, okay, his special status allowed him to bypass the website and delegate to his subordinates the aggravation of enrollment, unlike the millions of poor saps who had to be patient and keep trying during the Great 404 Meltdown of 2013.”

Nevertheless, Obama will now be paying hundreds of dollars per month for a plan he’ll quite likely never use just like millions of others. And, Hot Air observed, Obama also purchased a plan that appeals to many others — a “bronze” plan that is cheaper but carries such a high deductible one might as well not have insurance.

According to the White House, Obama’s plan will cost less than $400 per month, and does not cover the First Lady or his children.

“The president’s wife and daughters, who already have health care, did not enroll,” NPRsaid.

Of course, Obama will still get his health care from the military, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, so the move was symbolic in nature and had no real meaning.

Harry Reid: Government Needs to Steal More from the Middle Class


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.infowars.com

 

Posted by:Kurt Nimmo

If Reid really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, he would help us get rid of the Federal Reserve

dees-bank

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Illustration: David Dees

Senate Majority Leader, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, wants the government to steal more money from the middle class and dole it out to the victims of the Federal Reserve created economic depression.

“Even as the economy creates jobs, too many Americans find themselves on the sidelines watching as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class are getting squeezed and squeezed,” Reid said on Thursday.

“There is no greater challenge this country has than income inequality. And we must do something about it.”

Reid’s solution to income inequality is to tax and borrow more and give money to the unemployed. Democrats like to tell you this money will come from the super rich. But they know the super rich don’t pay taxes. From offshore tax havens to shell games, foundations and equity swaps, the rich rarely if ever pay taxes. Large multinational corporations with teams of lawyers don’t pay taxes either. GE, for instance, avoided paying taxes by socking $108 billion overseas.

So when Harry Reid talks about redistributing more money to the unemployed, he’s talking about taxing the middle class. He’s also talking about taxing the small businessman who can’t afford fancy tax lawyers and does not have the option to move money to the Cayman Islands or Lichtenstein.

According to recent Small Business Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, around 85 percent of all new jobs are created by small business. If Harry Reid and the Democrats raise taxes on small business, the net result will be less capital for business and less jobs created. Higher taxation leads to business cutting expenditures and laying off people. Harry Reid and the Democrats will create even more unemployment and misery.

There is, however, an upside to Reid’s demand, at least for Democrat career politicians. It will create more Democrat voters. Many of them will not have jobs. But they will vote for Democrats in order to continue receiving unemployment insurance and food stamps. Amnesty is basically the same thing. It will create millions of new Democrat voters.

If Reid and the Democrats really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, they would get rid of the Federal Reserve, throw out the bankers who designed the last so-called recession, and restore honest money instead of fiat currency based on nothing and exploited by fractional reserve criminals.

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Harry Reid knows this. His top election donors include JP Morgan Chase, AT&T, MGM, Comcast and big gambling casinos.

That’s who he answers to. Not the American people.

 

BOHICA ! ! Report: Budget Plan Could Cost Service Members $124,000 in Retirement Pay


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://freebeacon.com

 

Posted by:Elizabeth Harrington

Sens. Wicker, Graham, and Ayotte oppose cuts to military personnel

Military retirees face loses in budget deal

Military retirees could face as much as $124,000 in lost retirement income if the bipartisan budget agreement is enacted, according to the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA).

The Washington Free Beacon reported that under the budget agreement crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.), military retirees younger than 62 will receive 1 percentage point less in their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).

While new federal employees who are hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will be required to pay 1.3 percent more of their pay into their pension plans, federal retirees will continue to receive their generous pension benefits and current employees will not be required to pay more.

Current civilian government workers will be grandfathered in at their current contribution rate of 0.8 percent.

According to the MOAA, the nation’s largest association of military officers, the proposal would have a significant impact on military retirees, including many who retire in their 40s after two decades of service.

A loss of one percentage point in their COLA translates into thousands of dollars in lost retirement income.

For instance, a 42-year-old who retires as an enlisted E-7 could lose a minimum of $72,000. E-7 refers to the ranks of Sergeant First Class, Chief Petty Officer (CPO), Master Sergeant, and Gunnery Sergeant.

A 42-year old Lieutenant Colonel could lose a minimum of $109,000 over a 20-year period.

If an E-7 retires at 40, they would lose $83,000. Commissioned officers could lose much more. Lieutenant colonels and commanders (an O-5 rank) who retire at 40 would lose $124,000.

Opposition to the deal grew when it became apparent military retirees would see their retirement pay take a hit.

“I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) said in a statementThursday. “Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military.”

“We can and should do a deal without cutting the benefits of our men and women who have volunteered for a military career,” he said. “The plan should be rejected.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the deal “unacceptable.”

“After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,” Graham said in a statement. “Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.”

On the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, spoke out against the changes to military retirement pay.

“This penalizes current and future military members who have served our nation for over 20 years,” Inhofe said.

“Keep in mind, people go into the military quite young sometimes knowing that the time they would serve would be for 20 years, many of them longer,” he said. “That’s kind of a given. And they do this predicated on the assumption that retirement benefits and all these things are going to be there.”

Though he is still undecided on whether to vote for the budget plan, Inhofe said the military retiree provision would have to be removed before he could vote for it.

“I know it’s not an easy job,” he said, of crafting a budget proposal. “I know that we had a Democrat and Republican working very hard on it, but that’s one thing […] I believe that can be changed.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) has also come out against the deal late Thursday.

“I cannot support a budget agreement that fails to deal with the biggest drivers of our debt, but instead pays for more federal spending on the backs of our active duty and military retirees – those who have put their lives on the line to defend us,” Ayotte said in a statement.

“My hope is that both parties can work together to replace these unfair cuts that impact our men and women in uniform with more responsible savings, such as the billions that the Government Accountability Office has identified in waste, duplication and fraud across the federal government.”

 

NEW OBAMA ADVISER WANTS TO CEDE U.S. OCEANS TO U.N.


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:AARON KLEIN

President seeks his help on executive orders, climate change

author-imageAARON KLEIN

ocean

President Obama’s new staff adviser, senior progressive strategist John Podesta, is a key player in an initiative seeking more government regulation of the oceans and the ceding of U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law.

That background could inform Podesta’s agenda in the White House, where he is to serve for one year as a “counselor” to the president. The New York Times reported he will focus on executive orders and so-called climate change issues along with Obamacare.

Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, is founder of the highly influential Center for American Progress.

He is also a member of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which seeks to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

“I am delighted to be joining the Global Ocean Commission, which I see as one of the most dynamic initiatives developing commonsense ways to manage fully 45 percent of the globe that remains common property, outside any national jurisdiction,” said Podesta when he joined the commission.

The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to “accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform.”

Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Other recommendations of Podesta’s Joint Ocean Commission Initiative include:

  • The administration and Congress should establish a national ocean policy. The administration and Congress should support regional, ecosystem-based approaches to the management of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes.
  • Congress should strengthen and reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  • Congress should strengthen the Clean Water Act.

Last year, Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce, created in 2010 also by executive order, recommended the U.S. join the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Convention.

The convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.

Republican lawmakers mounted fierce opposition to the U.S. joining the U.N. law.

‘One world government’

Podesta’s Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, meanwhile, is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”

In what world does does Joint Ocean have to do with abolishing war ?  (The convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.)

CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

Or in other words to change the views of the Americans view of Communism

The organization currently works on issues that fall into five general areas: U.S. global engagement; global health and environment; peace and security; international law and justice; and international institutions.

John Podesta was a chief of staff to President Bill Clinton

CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.

The movement brings together organizations and individuals that support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. The doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya.

In 2008, Podesta served as co-director of Obama’s transition into the White House.

A Time magazine article profiled the influence of Podesta’s Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

The center is funded by billionaire George Soros. Its board includes Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar, who resigned in September 2009 after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/new-obama-adviser-wants-to-cede-u-s-oceans-to-u-n/#EzR8kvETiPPd8p6g.99

 

More Gang of Eight Foes


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.nationalreview.com

 

Posted by:Andrew Stiles

Immigration officers complain that DHS won’t let them enforce immigration laws.

Andrew Stiles

Conservative critics of the Gang of Eight immigration bill are closely watching the House, wary of any actions that could lead to a conference committee with the Senate. Many have been critical of what they regard as House leadership’s equivocation on the issue, and now some are accusing House Republicans of failing to adequately investigate the Obama administration’s failure to enforce existing immigration law.

Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, the union representing more than 7,500 officers and support staff at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is urging House lawmakers to investigate alleged abuses by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before introducing any immigration-reform legislation. “We are urging all lawmakers to demand an investigation of DHS before moving immigration bills,” Crane, a vocal critic of the Gang of Eight, wrote in a letter to members of Congress on Monday.

Advertisement

He is joined by Kenneth Palinkas, president of the union representing officers and staff of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), who also opposes the Gang of Eight bill. “At every step, this administration places obstacles and roadblocks in front of our adjudication officers in their attempts to protect our nation’s security and the American taxpayer,” Palinkas said on October 10. He has warned that pursuing immigration reform of any kind “without first confronting the widespread abuses at USCIS would be to invite disaster.”

Both union presidents complain that neither the Gang of Eight nor President Obama has sought their input on the issue of immigration-law enforcement. Crane has been trying to secure a meeting at the White House since February.

“ICE officers are being ordered by DHS political appointees to ignore the law,” Crane wrote Monday. “Violent criminal aliens are released every day from jails back into American communities. ICE Officers face disciplinary action for engaging in routine law enforcement actions.” Last year, a group of ICE agents sued the Obama administration over its June 2012 policy directive designed to give certain illegal immigrants — so-called DREAMers, who were brought to the country as children — a reprieve from deportation efforts. The agents contend that the administration’s directive has been applied far too broadly and often forces them to release illegal immigrants arrested for violent crimes, such as assaulting an officer. In some cases, known gang members with criminal histories are let go without charge. All they have to do is claim protection under “Obama’s DREAM Act,” as some have taken to calling it.

“This a public-safety issue,” Crane tells National Review Online. “The administration’s actions are putting the American people at risk, and I think every member of Congress should be demanding answers.” Essentially, his agents are prohibited from enforcing the law; they are “beat down and scared” and under the constant threat of retaliation from an agency (DHS) that “rules with an iron fist.” He is skeptical of any immigration-reform effort that fails to address these concerns.

Palinkas argues that USCIS, which is charged with processing immigrant applications for visas and requests for legal status, has become “an approval machine” at the administration’s behest: The approval rate of applications for legal status under the so-called “DREAM order” is almost 100 percent. Adjudicators are given “approval quotas” and discouraged from fully vetting applications, Palinkas says. Employees are forced to comply with administrative orders requiring USCIS to grant welfare benefits to immigrants who are not legally eligible to receive them.

“We’re ready and willing to meet with anyone and everyone who asks, and to help out with any investigations,” Crane says. House Republicans have held a number of hearings dealing with issues of border security and interior immigration enforcement, but none so far have specifically addressed the concerns presented by the immigration-law-enforcement community.

A senior conservative aide opposed to the Gang of Eight suggests that House leadership is reluctant to draw attention to the accusation from immigration officers out of fear that it could further complicate the politics of immigration reform, which is backed by prominent interest groups in both parties. “It’s easy to be tough when you don’t have to confront any embedded special interests,” the aide said, citing as examples Republican resolve during investigations into scandals surrounding the IRS and the Fast and Furious program. “The real question is, Are you tough when it requires you to take on the special interests in your own party?”

The “grand thinkers” in the Republican party just want to “get the immigration issue behind” them and know that the base is already on edge, the aide adds. “It would be inconvenient to explore these scandals and corrupt activities, because revealing them would require taking action to address them, and that would be an unpleasant roadblock to the swift passage of an immigration bill.

 

U.S. SIGNALS IT WON’T BE BACKING ISRAEL


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:F. MICHAEL MALOOF

‘We have to do everything we can to give the diplomatic solution a chance to operate’

author-image

NukeTowers

 

WASHINGTON – Washington is sending an increasingly strong signal to Israel that it will not support or engage in military action against Iran, despite Tehran’s insistence on continuing its nuclear program, according to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

As WND recently reported, in what amounts to a final warning, Israel said it intends to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, since it believes Tehran is within a month of constructing a nuclear bomb.

Israeli officials say that they may not wait that long before undertaking military action.

While Iran has consistently denied its nuclear program is designed to build weapons, Israel bases its assessment on centrifuges that are producing enriched uranium at 20 percent. Israel says that provides a basis for further enrichment to more than 90 percent, which could fuel a nuclear weapon.

Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is close to the Obama administration, said that the United States hasn’t taken any options – meaning military action – off the table but intends to give a priority to pursuing a negotiated compromise over Iran’s nuclear program.

In a recent interview with Iran Review, Pickering said that there has been no change in the administration’s actions.

“I think that the Israelis have always been preoccupied with the notion that diplomacy won’t be able to do the job and that it won’t get anywhere,” Pickering said.

“Read “The Late Great State of Israel” and discover what threatens Israel today.

“And I think he (Obama) has always said that he is deeply opposed to an Iranian nuclear weapon,” Pickering said. “He is going to try diplomacy as a way to assure that this won’t happen.

“We are now engaged in that, but he has also always said he is not prepared to take other options off the table, but obviously he sees whether the diplomacy option can work. So, I don’t think anything has changed and is different.”

Picking’s description of the Obama administration’s policy on Iran is in conflict with comments recently made by prominent American-Jewish billionaire and GOP financial backer Sheldon Adelson.

Before an audience at Israel’s Yeshiva University, Adelson suggested the United States should use nuclear weapons on Iran rather than negotiate.

“What are we going to negotiate about?” Adelson asked.

“I would say, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ …You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’ And so there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever. Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. You want to be peaceful? Just reverse it all, and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes.’”

The 80-year-old casino mogul was a major supporter of former presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election. He made his comments with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at a symposium called “Will Jews Exist? Iran, Assimilation and the Threat to Israel and Jewish Survival.”

Pickering, however, struck a more conciliatory approach, with the prospect that the recent election of Hassan Rouhani means the new president of Iran will be more moderate – a claim  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disputes.

“Of course, not everybody agrees with a diplomatic solution,” Pickering said. “I think at this stage, we have to do everything we can to give the diplomatic solution a chance to operate.

“We have to recognize that people on both sides would criticize it, even before they made a major effort to try it,” he said.

“I think those are some problems that have to be contended with. They are not unique on one side or another, but as a diplomat, I’ve been a diplomat for a long period of time, one learns that in a diplomatic process, one has to do his best to overcome those obstacles rather than necessarily let them destroy the process.”

Pickering, who has served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Israel, India and Jordan among other countries, also is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and is on the board of directors of the American-Iranian Council.

Pickering signaled that the Obama administration wants closer diplomatic ties with Tehran, given the mutual interests of the U.S. and Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/u-s-signals-it-wont-be-backing-israel/#pl1B9eEFspjG5VOi.99

 

BLS: Gov’t Workers ‘Absent’ 50% More Than Private-Sector Workers


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://cnsnews.com

 

Posted by:Ali Meyer

Thermometer

(CNSNews.com) – A government worker is 38 percent more likely to be absent from work for personal reasons or illnesses than a private-sector worker, and government workers miss 50 percent more of their usual work hours as a result of such absences than do private sector workers, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Each month, the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey collects information from 60,000 households, including information on employment status.  BLS uses this data to publish employment statistics.

The survey is conducted during the week that includes the 19th day of the month and the questions it asks that reference a particular week apply to the week that includes the 12th day of the month.

“When an employed wage and salary worker who usually works 35 hours per week is reported as having worked fewer than 35 hours during the survey reference week (including those with jobs who worked zero hours), a question is asked as to why he or she worked fewer than 35 hours,” explains the BLS. “Workers whose reasons for missing work include their own illness or other personal reasons (such as family responsibilities or transportation problems) are counted as having had an absence. Those who are reported as having worked fewer than 35 hours because of vacation, holiday, labor-management dispute, or bad weather which results in an employer temporarily curtailing business activities are not counted as having an absence.”

In 2012, according to BLS, 4.0 percent of government workers reported being absent from work in the typical reference week compared to 2.9 percent of private-sector workers. Thus, a government worker was 38 percent more likely to be absent than a private-sector worker.

Government workers also missed more of their usual work hours as a result of such absences than did private-sector workers. In 2012, according to BLS, private sector workers missed 1.4 percent of their usual work hours as a result of absences and government workers missed 2.1 percent of their usual work hours because of absences. Thus, government workers missed 50 percent more of their usual work hours as a result of absences than private-sector workers did.

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It’s fast, easy and secure.

– See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/bls-gov-t-workers-absent-50-more-private-sector-workers#sthash.ARKuHFki.dpuf

 

New Battle in ‘War on Coal’ With Bill to Block Power-Plant Rules


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

http://www.nationaljournal.com

 

Posted by:Clare Foran and Alex Brown

Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee‘s Energy and Power Subcommittee.(Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

A bipartisan bill taking aim at the centerpiece of President Obama’s agenda on climate change probably has little chance of becoming law, but it gives the coal industry and its supporters a new rallying cry against impending Environmental Protection Agency regulations for power plants.

On Monday, House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced a discussion draft of legislation to significantly rein in EPA’s regulatory authority over greenhouse gases in the electricity sector.

The draft would block the agency’s proposed new source-performance standards for future power plants, released in September. It calls on future EPA rule-making for new coal-fired power plants to mandate already existing, commercially proven technology to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, and it would allow Congress to determine when regulations on existing plants take effect.

“We’re just using a practical, common-sense approach,” Whitfield said at a press briefing on the bill. “If an entity wants to [build a new coal-fired plant] and they can use the best available technology … then the EPA … should not be able to stop them from doing that.”

The release of the discussion draft comes ahead of a major push against the regulations on Tuesday, with a pro-coal rally set to take place on the West Lawn of the Capitol. The rally, organized by Count on Coal, a grassroots coal advocacy campaign, is expected to draw between 3,500 to 4,000 participants, many of them miners and utility workers concerned about the EPA regulations.

“There’s a real human impact here,” said Nancy Gravatt, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association. “There are a lot of people who are very concerned about how extreme these regulations are and want to make their voices heard.”

Coal-state lawmakers from both parties are expected to attend, including Manchin and two fellow West Virginians—Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall and Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito—along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.

“I would be hopeful that [the administration] would listen and not just give us lip service,” Capito told National Journal Daily. “If all we’re doing is raising the level of discussion and shining a light on it and hoping to change things that way, I’ll take what I can get. Because I’m very frustrated that it’s been a deaf ear up to this point.”

Environmentalists began attacking the Whitfield-Manchin draft as soon as it became public Monday. “This would handcuff the EPA, preventing it from reducing carbon pollution that puts our children’s health at risk,” said David Hawkins, director of climate programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s the latest attempt by radicals in Congress to gut the Clean Air Act’s ability to protect future generations from the dangers of climate change.”

 

Wal-Mart Plans to Hire Any Veteran Who Wants a Job


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.nytimes.com

 

Posted by:JAMES DAO

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, will announce Tuesday a plan to hire every veteran who wants a job, provided that the veterans have left the military in the previous year and did not receive a dishonorable discharge.

National Twitter Logo.

The announcement, to be made in a speech in New York by William S. Simon, the president and chief executive of Wal-Mart U.S., represents among the largest hiring commitments for veterans in history.

Company officials said they believe the program, which will officially begin on Memorial Day — May 27 this year — will lead to the hiring of more than 100,000 people in the next five years, the length of the commitment.

“Let’s be clear: Hiring a veteran can be one of the best decisions any of us can make,” Mr. Simon will say in his keynote speech to the National Retail Federation, according to prepared text. “These are leaders with discipline, training and a passion for service.”

In a statement, the first lady, Michelle Obama, who has led a campaign by the White House to encourage businesses to hire veterans, called the Wal-Mart plan “historic,” adding that she planned to urge other corporations to follow suit.

“We all believe that no one who serves our country should have to fight for a job once they return home,” Mrs. Obama said in the statement. “Wal-Mart is setting a groundbreaking example for the private sector to follow.”

The unemployment rate for veterans of the recent wars has remained stubbornly above that for nonveterans, though it has been falling steadily, dropping to just below 10 percent for all of 2012. That was down from 12.1 percent the year before. The year-end unemployment rate for nonveterans was 7.9 percent in 2012.

Reducing the veteran unemployment rate was among the few veterans’ issues discussed by the presidential candidates last year. It has also been central to the work of Mrs. Obama’s campaign to assist veterans and military families, Joining Forces. Last August, her office said that private companies working with Joining Forces had hired or trained 125,000 veterans or their spouses in a single year, surpassing the group’s goal of 100,000 a full year early.

Wal-Mart’s foundation has consistently been among the most generous contributors to veterans’ charities, committing to donate $20 million to veterans’ causes by 2015. “I take this one personally,” Mr. Simon, a Navy veteran, says in his prepared text.

But the company has also been aggressive about hiring veterans because it views them as good employees, said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the author of the book “The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business.”

About 100,000 of the company’s 1.4 million employees in the United States are veterans, company officials said.

“They like military people because they have a sense of hierarchy and a commitment to the organization they are in,” said Professor Lichtenstein, who has been a critic of Wal-Mart’s management practices. “And that’s important to Wal-Mart.” In recent years, Wal-Mart has been the target of lawsuits by women, accusing the company of discrimination in salaries and promotions.

Gary Profit, a retired Army brigadier general who is senior director of military programs at Wal-Mart, said the company might not be able to guarantee that every veteran who wants a full-time job will be able to get one. But he said that because of the size of Wal-Mart’s retail operation and supply chain, it is almost certain that the company could find a job — even a part-time one — close to any veteran who wanted one.

“If you’re a veteran and you want a job in the retail industry, you have a place at Wal-Mart,” he said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 14, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the position of William S. Simon. He is the president and chief executive of Wal-Mart U.S. He does not fill that role for Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

 

52 reasons Obamacare can’t work


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:Garth Kant

Obama’s signature law falling apart on multiple fronts

author-image

Garth Kant is WND Washington news editor. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at “CNN Headline News,” three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, “How to Write Television News.”

Obama signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, his signature legislation, into law

WASHINGTON – Rod Coons and Florence Peace, a healthy couple in Indianapolis, spend only $500 every year on medical care and say their current health plan works well for them – but Obamacare will soon strip them of that contentment, forcing them to pay soaring rates and accept inferior care because their existing plan isn’t “government approved.”

And they aren’t alone.

Many Americans don’t realize their health plans won’t meet Obamacare standards next year, experts warn.

Abbey Bruce, a nursing assistant who works a second job cleaning, learned she will now pay a sharply higher deductible, because of Obamacare’s so-called Cadillac tax, which penalizes companies that offer high-end health care plans to employees.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, stands beside a towering stack of Obamacare regulations

The problems don’t end there. Now that America is finding out what’s in President Obama’s signature legislation, dozens upon dozens of severe problems, failures and unworkable plans are coming to light. And now, polls show most Americans are beginning to suffer both sticker shock and buyer’s remorse.

The controversial, 10,000-page law is now literally falling apart on dozens of different fronts, as a comprehensive WND review has revealed.

Obama promised his health plan would improve coverage, lower premiums by $2,500 per family and allow Americans to keep their doctors and health plans, but a crushing mountain of evidence is indicating otherwise.

Given the more than 50 major problems WND has documented, all of President Obama’s promises appear either highly in question or unlikely to happen, more than three years after his Affordable Care Act was signed into law March 23, 2010.

The most recent glitch is a significant one: The administration’s decision to delay the caps on out-of-pocket expenses is a large part of what is supposed to make the Affordable Care Act affordable. No caps on out-of-pocket expenses means insurance customers will have to pay more for co-payments and deductibles and insurance companies will be required to pay less.

This setback to Obamacare is merely the latest in what has become a long and staggering list of failures or impending failures – including the most important promises affecting cost and coverage. Some of the most striking Obamacare problems are:

  • no guarantee Americans will keep their doctors,
  • Americans may lose their health plans,
  • worsening health care,
  • higher premiums,
  • higher taxes,
  • budget deficit increase,
  • hiring freezes,
  • slashed workers’ hours,
  • killing existing jobs,
  • killing new jobs,
  • jobs already killed,
  • 1,200 business waivers,
  • higher Medicare costs,
  • seniors may lose Medicare,
  • most Americans don’t want it.

The list of Obamacare failures, problems and setbacks is growing at a faster pace as Obamacare approaches its implementation deadline of Jan. 1, 2014:

 

1) Americans may lose their doctors: The president promised, “No matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep them.” However, that promise is not necessarily true, according to his own Department of Human Health and Services. HHS recently posted the answer to this question on Healthcare.gov: “Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor.”

The government explains, “Most health insurance plans offered in the Marketplace have networks of hospitals, doctors, specialists, pharmacies, and other health care providers. Networks include health care providers that the plan contracts with to take care of the plan’s members. Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider.”

2) Americans may lose their health plans: Obama promised “you can keep your health plan,” but customers with high deductibles are now discovering their insurance plans do not qualify as “government approved” under Obamacare, so they will be required to change plans. A fact-check review by even the left-leaning Politifact.com found Obama’s promise only “half true” and difficult to predict, due to continuing uncertainties in the implementation of Obamacare.

3) Worsening health care: The New York Times reports as many as 75 percent of health plans will be affected by the so-called “Cadillac tax” on what the administration labels high-end plans. A health-care expert warned consumers should expect their plan is going to be more expensive and they will have fewer benefits. The Times predicts those patients can expect to visit clinics instead of doctors for prescriptions or blood-pressure checks; programs, rather than doctors, to manage such chronic conditions as diabetes; and a health screening to determine one’s odds of developing a costly health condition.

 

4) Higher premiums: Although Obama claimed his program “would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums,” a Wall Street Journal study revealed premiums for healthy people could actually double, or even triple.

5) Higher taxes: The Heritage Foundation found 20 new or increased taxes in Obamacare, including taxes on investment income, Medicare payroll, the individual and employer mandates, insurance companies, insurance plans, innovator drug companies, medical device manufacturers, medical bills, flexible spending accounts for special-needs children, over-the-counter medicines, parts of Medicare D, Blue Cross/Blue Shield deductions and charitable hospitals.

6) Budget deficit increase: The GAO reports Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion.

7) Hiring freezes: A Gallup poll found more than 40 percent of small businesses have frozen hiring because of Obamacare.

8) Slashed workers’ hours: A survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found half of small businesses affected by Obamacare plan to either replace their current full-time workers with part-timers or cut their workers’ hours because of the law’s requirements.

9) Killing existing jobs: The same survey found 24 percent of small businesses plan to cut staff to less than 50 to avoid paying penalties for not providing health insurance.

10) Killing new jobs: One-third of employers cited the uncertainty of Obamacare’s costs and regulations as the biggest obstacle to hiring more workers. New taxes could kill tens of thousands of jobs, possibly causing more layoffs. The employer mandate, once implemented, will be a disincentive for businesses to hire more than 49 full-time workers if the businesses can’t pay for health insurance.

11) Jobs already killed: Layoffs at a south-side Chicago hospital, a Wisconsin health care company, a Pennsylvania community college and cities in Ohio and Pennsylvania have already been attributed to Obamacare.

Job seekers line up outside a New York City unemployment office

12) More than 1,200 business waivers: HHS acknowledged issuing businesses more than 1,200 waivers from parts of Obamacare by January 2012. After that, the department stopped updating the total number of waivers because of monthly ridicule from the GOP. Instead, HHS stopped accepting applications for one-year waivers and simply granted or denied waivers through the end of the year.

13) Higher Medicare costs: A Heritage Foundation analysis found Obamacare will force seniors to suffer higher out-of-pocket expenses over the next five years. Payments will be reduced to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home health-care agencies.

14) Seniors may lose Medicare:Another Heritage Foundation study determined, “Many seniors will experience a reduction in their Medicare Advantage benefits or even a loss of their existing plan.”

15) Americans reject Obamacare: A CBS News poll found 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the health-care law. More Americans than ever, 39 percent, want it repealed.

16) Fewer insurance companies:Businesses providing health insurance dropped from 59 percent to 52 percent from 2000 to 2011.

17) Fewer insurance choices: Two major health care providers, United Healthcare and Aetna, stopped providing coverage in California because of Obamacare’s requirements.

18) Basic health plan delayed: The administration postponed until after the 2014 election the health program for low-to-moderate income people who don’t qualify for expanded Medicaid.

19) Early retiree program broke: A plan intended to insure early retirees between ages 55 and 65, and their dependents, until government-run exchanges are in place quickly ran out of money. HHS stopped accepting new applications in May 2011. By December 2011, the program had spent its $5 billion budget and stopped paying any claims – two years before it was supposed to end.

20) High-risk pools failing: The administration cut payments to doctors and hospitals before it ran out of money to fund the pre-existing condition insurance plan for people with cancer, heart disease and other serious conditions. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius simply announced “health care facilities and providers will get paid less” for providing the same services.

 

21) Insurance co-ops failing: The Inspector General for HHS reported most of the 24 health care cop-ops created under Obamacare are in danger of running out of money before they even provide health insurance.

22) Uninsured children: Major health insurance companies, including Anthem Blue Cross and Aetna, decided to stop selling new policies for children rather than comply with the law now forbidding them from rejecting children with pre-existing medical conditions. Insurers say the law could create large and unexpected costs.

23) Union opposition: The leaders of three major U.S. unions (including the Teamsters), which strongly supported Obamacare, now warn Democratic leaders that unless the health-care law undergoes major changes, it will “destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.” It will also “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

24) Patients expect worsening care: A Rasmussen poll finds 61 percent of Americans expect health care to get worse under Obamacare over the next two years.

25) Doctors expect worsening care: Many doctors fear they will be unable to continue private practice because of low reimbursement rates from Medicaid and Medicare and will end up working for a corporation hospital where the profits are distributed to shareholders. Doctors fear they will be punished in that system if they spend too much time with a patient or provide too much treatment.

26) Small business plan delayed: The administration delayed implementation of a program designed to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses, a program the New York Times called “a major selling point for the health-care legislation.”

27) Losing the mainstream media: NBC has discovered Obamacare will cause some people to lose income, others to lose their jobs and some to lose their insurance. Reporter Lisa Myers said they “spoke to almost 20 small businesses and other entities around the country. Almost all said because of the new law, they’d be cutting back hours for some employees” below 30 each week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by Obamacare.

28) Death panels confirmed: Physician and former DNC Chairman Howard Dean wrote an editorial in July essentially confirming Sarah Palin’s contention that Obamcare will have a “death panel.” Palin was excoriated for her assertion by the administration and the mainstream media. PolitiFact.com even dubbed it 2009′s “Lie of the Year.” But Dean confirmed the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, “is essentially a health-care rationing body” that will “be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.” The rationing board will decide whether or not some patients get potentially life-saving treatments, which is basically how Palin described “death panel” in her 2009 Facebook post.

29) Growing Democratic Party opposition: Along with Howard Dean, 22 elected Democrats at the federal level now back the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. (The American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the pharmaceutical lobby also support repeal of the IPAB.) Four House Democrats were scolded by their own party after voting with Republicans to delay the individual and employer mandates.

30) Medicare cuts delayed: The administration is spending billions to postpone cuts to Medicare until after the 2014 election.

31) States resist Medicaid expansion: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, 24 states are moving toward expanding the program and 21 states are not.

32) Insurance exchanges unwanted: Most states have declined to create their own insurance exchanges and are letting Washington create a federally run exchange for them. A full 27 states are opting for the federal exchange while only 17 states are creating their own exchanges.

 

33) Bypassing Congress to change law: The Obama administration used the IRS to unilaterally rewrite the health-care law to fix a problem it did not anticipate, withoutconsulting Congress. The administration had expected all states to create health-insurance exchanges, but so far only 17 have done so and 27 states have defaulted to the federal exchange. The problem is, Obamacare authorized tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). So, in May 2012, the administration simply had the IRS issue a rule to authorize tax credits and subsidies in federal exchanges.

34) Congress investigates key rule: The chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced in January they would investigate and hold hearings on the IRS rule allowing federal exchanges under Obamacare to issue tax credits and subsidies. Federal exchanges were not allowed to do so under the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. But the administration directed the IRS to unilaterally change the law without involving Congress in May 2012.

 

35) Judge OKs suit against HHS: A federal judge rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss Oklahoma v. Sebelius. Oklahoma is challenging the legality of the IRS regulation giving tax credits to federal exchanges under Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed into law by the president allows those tax credits only to state exchanges, but only 17 states have established such exchanges. So the administration simply had the IRS issue a rule in May of 2012 to authorize tax credits and subsidies in federal exchanges.

36) Critical deadlines missed: A GAO report says critical deadlines to create a federal exchange have been missed, suggesting “a potential for challenges going forward.”

37) Doctors fleeing and opting out: The Wall Street Journal found Obamacare is causing fewer doctors to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. The number of doctors opting out of Medicare has nearly tripled from three years earlier. Even fewer are accepting new Medicaid patients. A survey found six in 10 physicians say it is likely many doctors will retire earlier than planned in the next one to three years. The same percentage say the practice of medicine is in jeopardy as medical experts lose control of their clinics and compensation because of Obamacare.

 

38) Fewer doctor and hospital choices: The New York times found health insurance companies are cutting costs by selecting health-care plans that reduce the number of doctors and hospitals available to customers.

39) HHS mandate challenged: The highly controversial HHS mandate, opposed by many (including the Catholic Church) on religious grounds because it would force employers to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs, is tied-up in the courts and may go to the Supreme Court.

40) Employer mandate delayed: The mandate requiring employers with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage has been postponed until after the 2014 election. Unions complain it is most unfair to require employees – but not employers – to adhere to Obamacare. Other prominent critics have echoed the accusation of Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, that it is unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally order this change after Obamacare had become law.

41) IRS “honor” system open to fraud, abuse:  Because the employer mandate is delayed but not the individual mandate, the government has no way to determine whether employees of businesses with 50 or more workers are eligible for subsidies. So, individuals will be on the “honor system” to report their insurance status to the IRS and whether they are eligible for subsidies. That leaves the door open for potential widespread fraud and improper subsidy payments. It also makes taxpayers liable to repay any subsidies and/or tax credits erroneously granted while the honor system is in effect.

42) Fewer child-only plans: According to a senate committee report, “As a result of the new regulations, children who are not eligible for Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), or high risk pools have fewer plans to choose from, and in many states are no longer able to obtain insurance coverage under child-only plans.”

 

43) Schools can’t afford insurance: Schools have already begun cutting hours to avoid paying insurance for substitute teachers and support staff such as classroom aides, cafeteria workers and bus drivers. Obamacare requires employers to offer health coverage to all employees who work an average of 30 or more hours per week each month, or else pay a fine.

44) Young people expected to opt out:Obamacare needs enough healthy people ages 18-34 to join health insurance exchanges to “cross-subsidize” people who are older and not as healthy. But a study shows the younger people will have a financial incentive to instead pay the individual mandate penalty of $95 or one percent of income. Approximately 3.7 million of those ages 18-34 will be at least $500 better off if they forgo insurance and pay the penalty. More than 3 million will be $1,000 better off if they go the same route. The study finds that is a big enough problem to doom the insurance exchanges.

45) Identity theft risks: The California insurance commissioner warns that poor screening of those helping people sign up for Obamacare could lead to identity theft and fraud.

 

46) Obamacare con artists: CNBC reports Obamacare is “a dream come true for rip-off artists.” Scam artists are setting up fake health-care exchanges on the Internet, enticing victims to enter their personal financial information. Other scam artists are calling, faxing and emailing people claiming to be with Medicare or Obamacare, asking for a bank account or Social Security number to “verify” personal information and to “make sure you get the proper benefits.” Others have tried to sell fake insurance cards and have even threatened people with jail if they don’t purchase one. Con artists have also tried to pass themselves off as Obamacare “navigators” who can help Americans apply for coverage through an exchange, then ask for money or personal information.

47) Public option failure: The public option would have provided a government-run insurance agency to compete with private insurers. The Department of Health and Human Services admitted in 2011 it would not work; then Congress repealed the program.

48) Employee free choice repealed: The plan would have allowed 300,000 employees to choose their own insurance coverage, using employer-financed vouchers.

49) Obama exempts Congress and staff: President Obama personally negotiated an exemption from the health-care law for members of Congress and their staff. They reportedly will have 75 percent of their health insurance costs paid by the government. That circumvents an amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, put into law, and expressly designed, to ensure Congress lives under Obamacare, just as the rest of the nation must.

50) Federal workers don’t want Obamacare: According to a survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees, 92.3 percent do not want to be forced into Obamacare. Only 2.9 percent want to make the change.

51) Involuntary home inspections: Critics say these are actually forced home inspections targeting a wide variety of Americans. They point to a provision in Obamacare providing hundreds of millions of dollars to make “evidence-based” inspections of “high-risk populations,” defined as families in which any of these conditions apply: the mother is under 21; someone is a tobacco user; children have low student achievement, developmental delays or disabilities; individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces. Critics say even homeschoolers may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness,” and farm families could face intervention to “prevent child injuries.” Gun owners may be required to comply with safety inspections.

52) Charitable hospitals threatened: Charitable hospitals that treat the uninsured could face hefty fines and even lose their nonprofit status. Hospitals that devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor could face penalties because of a new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code taking effect under Obamacare. Charitable hospitals will face considerable paperwork and scrutiny from bureaucrats particularly interested in how and why hospitals will be providing discounted or free care to poor patients.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/52-shocking-reasons-obamacare-cant-work/#zrvcXgHvKKFjRrjl.99

 

Obama’s Military Purge


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Arnold Ahlert 

usa-nazi-banner

Author

Is the Obama administration in the midst of a military purge? This year alone, nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the administration, and retired generals and current commanders who have spoken to TheBlaze believe that political ideology is the primary impetus behind the effort. “I think they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or not toe the party line,” a senior retired general told website. “Remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.” The general spoke on the condition of anonymity because he still provides the government with services and believes this administration would retaliate against him.

The terminations have a distinctly political odor surrounding them in at least three cases. In all three of these cases, Benghazi is at root. U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham was heading the United States African Command when our consulate came under attack on September 11, 2012. Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) he was never given a “stand down” order preventing him from securing the consulate. Yet the Washington Times, citing sources in the military, said he was given the order and immediately relieved of command when he decided to defy it. The Times further noted that Ham “retired” less that two years after receiving the command when all other commanders of similar stature have stayed on far longer. Sources told TheBlaze Ham was highly critical of the Obama administration’s decision not to send reinforcements to Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three for the Navy, was relieved of duty for allegedly using profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.” Though he was cleared of criminal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, administrative penalties have effectively ended his career. In testimony regarding Benghazi, Gaouette, who was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea on the night of the attack, told Congress there may not have been time to get flight crews to Libya. But under cross examination, he admitted he could have sent planes to that location.

Major General Baker, a two-star general who served as commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa, was fired for alcohol and sexual misconduct charges. The U.S. reportedly runs counter-terror operations out of Djibouti, and once again, military officials told TheBlaze Baker was involved in some aspect of Benghazi.

The other six were terminated for a variety of alleged offenses. Army Brigadier Gen. Bryan Roberts, commander of Fort Jackson beginning in 2011, was fired for adultery. Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, was terminated over a successful attack on that facility by the Taliban, resulting in two American deaths and the destruction of eight American planes. Sturdevant claims British forces were responsible for security at the base prior to the attack.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles M.M. Gurganus was terminated for questioning the “winning hearts and minds” policies that led to “green on blue” murders of American officers by “trusted” Afghan recruits. Other Afghan recruits led a platoon into an enemy ambush. Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship,” according to the Department of Defense. A blog written by a 26-year-old cadet medically discharged from West Point claims the three-star general was under investigation because a West Point Superintendent “improperly used” his office, and because of an insufficient investigation of a lewd email chain perpetrated by the men’s rugby team. Nothing was officially released by the DoD regarding any of the charges.

The last commanders, three-star Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, and Major General Michael Carey, were fired within 48 hours of each other. Giardina was the deputy commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, an entity that oversees all nuclear-armed missiles, bombers and submarines. He was commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Groups 9 and 10, which comprise all 18 of our nuclear-armed submarines. He was fired for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino. Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force, a role that put him in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at three operational wings, was fired “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment,” said Air Force spokesman Brig. Gen. Les Kodlick. The decision to fire Carey was made by Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the head of the Air Force Global Strike Command. Obama fired Giardina.

The firing of military leaders goes much further than top generals, however. On its Facebook page, Breitbart.com compiled a list of more than 197 military commanders, mostly at the rank of Colonel or above, who have been purged by the Obama administration since 2009.

According to military.com, allegations of sexual misconduct account for the firing of 30 percent of military commanders over the past eight years. That figure that increases to 40 percent when “ethical lapses” such as sexual assault and harassment, pornography, drugs and drinking are lumped together. But there are other dubious reasons why these commanders have been terminated, ranging from unspecified dereliction of duty, to improper saluting.

One of the largest purges occurred on the last day of November in 2011, when the administration terminated 157 Air Force Majors, a move the Chapman University of Military Law and its associated AMVETS Legal Clinic characterized as illegal. They noted that the Department of Defense specifies that absent extenuating circumstances, service members within six years of retirement would ordinarily be retained, and allowed to retire on time and collect benefits.

The Air force cited budget shortfalls as their primary reason for the terminations. Yet as institute director Maj. Kyndra Rotunda explained, based on the Defense Department’s Instruction 1320.08, “derogatory information” is the only reason officers can be terminated. “The defense department’s own regulation does not authorize what the defense department is doing,” Rotunda contended at the time. “The Airmen relied on the law when they entered service and now the Secretary wants to change that law, without authority.”

Earlier that same month, two-star Major Gen. Peter Fuller was relieved of his command in Afghanistan, after he told Politico that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other government officials in that country were “isolated from reality.” Ironically, Fuller was fired by Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, who was himself the subject of an FBI investigation a year later, for his role in the sex scandal that led to the resignation of CIA Director and retired general David Petraeus. Despite the FBI informing the Pentagon it had uncovered thousands of pages of emails between Allen and Florida socialite Jill Kelley, President Obama subsequently expressed “faith” in Allen’s ability to continue doing his job. It is impossible to determine whether Allen’s ideology played a role in maintaining that faith.

2012 also saw several terminations of officers based on questionable rationale. In May, Commander Derick Armstrong, commanding officer of the guided missile destroyer USS The Sullivans, was relieved of duty by Vice Adm. Frank Pandolfe “as a result of an unprofessional command climate that was contrary to good order and discipline,” according to a Navy news release. A week earlier, the Navy relieved Cmdr. Dennis Klein of command of the submarine USS Columbia, citing a loss of confidence in his ability to serve effectively.

Stars and Stripes listed several other Navy commanders relieved of duty in 2012. While some on the list were terminated for seemingly legitimate reasons, a curious lack of specificity applied to others. They include Capt. James CoBell, commanding officer of Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic, who was let go for “leadership issues”; Cmdr. Franklin Fernandez, commanding officer of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24, for a “loss of confidence” in his ability to command due to allegedly “driving under the influence”; Capt. Marcia Lyons, commander of Naval Health Clinic New England, for problems with her “command climate”; and Capt. Sean McDonell, commander of Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 in Jacksonville, FL, for mismanagement and unspecified “major program deficiencies.” Several others were fired for “inappropriate personal behavior” or “personal misconduct.”

Theories for these purges run the gamut. One posits that anyone associated with Benghazi had to go. Another states that many of these firings are an effort to clean up “operational failures,” most notably a 2007 incident in which six nuclear-tipped missiles went missing for 36 hours. Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, believes it is part of the president’s strategy to reduce America’s standing in the world. “[Obama is] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon, and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he contended.

Vallely’s assessment was echoed by a source at the Pentagon who wished to remain anonymous because the source was not authorized to speak on the subject. He or she contended that “young officers, down through the ranks, have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job—just keep your mouth shut.”

This theory finds validation when one considers the Obama administration’s larger assault on the military. The military is the last organized bastion of conservative values, due in large part to the nature of the military itself. Yet, in recent years, the push to embrace progressive values, such as openly gay servicemen, women in combat and diversity worship have been pursued with vigor. Even the aforementioned effort to “win the hearts and minds” of Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to pursuing victory, marks a sea change from traditional military values.

Not only is the Obama administration apparently on a mission to undermine the integrity of the military in this way, but it has also revealed itself to be entirely intolerant of dissent of any kind. Whether it is reporters or domestic opposition groups such as the Tea Party, Obama has made clear he will aggressively pursue anyone who defies his agenda. Now it seems that chilling message his been sent to the military as well.

 

 

 

Obama’s Valerie Jarrett: Often Whispered about, But Never Challenged


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

Reblogged from

Posted by John Fund

 

President Obama’s aides went to extraordinary lengths to uncover the identity of a senior official who was using Twitter to make snarky comments about White House staffers. Suspicion gradually centered on Jofi Joseph, the point man on nuclear nonproliferation at the National Security Council. So at a meeting in which everyone was in on the scam an inaccurate but innocuous news tidbit was revealed. When Joseph used his anonymous Twitter handle #natlsecwonk to broadcast the tidbit he was caught and promptly fired. He was not fired for revealing any secrets, but for making disparaging comments about thin-skinned administration players ranging from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

What apparently intensified the campaign to identify the “snarker” was a comment about Valerie Jarrett, the senior Obama adviser who has her own Secret Service detail and appears to exercise an inordinate amount of power behind the scenes. Joseph tweeted “I’m a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me.”

Jarrett, an old Chicago friend of both Barack and Michelle Obama, appears to exercise such extraordinary influence she is sometimes quietly referred to as “Rasputin” on Capitol Hill, a reference to the mystical monk who held sway over Russia’s Czar Nicholas as he increasingly lost touch with reality during World War I.

Darrell Delamaide, a columnist for Dow Jones’s MarketWatch, says that “what has baffled many observers is how Jarrett, a former cog in the Chicago political machine and a real-estate executive, can exert such influence on policy despite her lack of qualifications in national security, foreign policy, economics, legislation or any of the other myriad specialties the president needs in an adviser.”  

Delamaide believes the term “vacuous cipher” that was applied to Jarrett stung so much because it could be used as a metaphor for the administration in general. He writes that what “has remained consistent about the Obama administration is that vacuity — the slow response in a crisis, the hesitant and contradictory communication, a lack of conviction and engagement amid constant political calculation.” The stunning revelation that President Obama wasn’t kept properly apprised of problems with Obamacare’s website is just the latest example of how dysfunctional Obama World can be. 

Whether Jarrett’s influence is all too real or exaggerated is unknowable. What is known is the extent to which she has long been a peerless enabler of Barack Obama’s inflated opinion of himself. Consider this quote from New Yorker editor David Remnick’s interview with her for his 2010 book The Bridge.

“I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability — the extraordinary, uncanny ability — to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make sense out of them, and I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . So what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”

Up against a court flatterer of that caliber it’s no surprise that Jarrett has outlasted almost everyone who was in Obama’s original White House team — from chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to political guru David Axelrod to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. All are known to have crossed her, and all are gone. As one former Obama aide once told me: “Valerie is ‘She Who Must Not be Challenged.’”  

When the revealing histories of the Obama White House are written it will be fascinating to learn just how extensive her role in the key decisions of the Obama years was.

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Lissa's Humane Life | In Honor of George & All Targeted Individuals — END TIMES HARBINGER OF TRUTH ~ STANDING FIRM IN THE LAST HUMAN AGE OF A GENOCIDAL DARKNESS —

— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: