Here’s Why Obama Will Get A Third Term…

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.western

journalism.com

 

Posted by:DAVE MERRICK

Predicting our downfall is not anything that I ever wanted to write. Indeed, just a few years back, I still hadn’t imagined that we would ever really allow the things we have without a fight. But we have.

---

There is a strong likelihood that our next president will be the incumbent, Barry Soetoro, or – short of overhauling the 22nd amendment – whatever other liberal candidate the Democrats may produce. We conservatives have pretty much sealed our fate and, if we continue as we have, don’t have a snowball’s chance in perdition of ever again occupying the nation’s chief office. My prediction is just as unpleasant to me as it may be to any of my readers. Nevertheless, those are my sentiments, and I would almost be willing to take bets on the accuracy of my words.

Here is why it will happen …

First off, conservatives have allowed themselves to completely fall asleep at the switch. In our resting on the fantasy that everyone else basically thinks as we do, we went and forgot that the price of freedom really is constant vigilance. All this time, while we were driving back and forth to work, paying bills, and saving what we could for a rainy day, we lost sight of the fact that there is a growing crowd of people out there who genuinely want only to work the system and collect a paycheck for doing nothing. We’ve allowed our history lessons to fade off into uselessness as we’ve ignored the truth that ‘liberalism’ is just the soft-boiled precursor to socialism and slavery. We let slide Lincoln’s dire warning about the recurrent reality of lazy tyrants consuming the fruits of the working diligent. And now we are walking right into that reality with our own government freshly wired to give muscle to the lazy tyrants.

Professional, power-hungry politicians and their constituency comprise the lazy tyrants. Both are seeking after their own bottomless ATM cards, which they fully intend to supply from the labors of the working diligent.

Forever, the liberals have ridden the system in order to try to maintain themselves in a manner in which they would like to become accustomed. They artfully use narcotic, PC words like ‘fairness,’ ‘balance,’ ‘tolerance,’ and ‘equality’ as pry tools for taking stuff that doesn’t belong to them. From day one, the liberal presents himself as a humanitarian and champion of the underdog, while in fact, he’s fighting to establish a utopian set of ‘rights’ that simply can’t exist in the real world.

Our current president and his entire administrative staff/enablers are the living example of how this racket works: Use the taxpayers’ money to buy votes from the burgeoning swarm who are convinced their votes will ensure their leader’s promised panacea. This old formula is job security for the leftist politician – since, after all, what parasite in his right mind would shoot himself in the foot by voting against his own free ride? It’s a circular plan that must eventually crash because nobody – none of the working diligent, anyway – is stupid enough to keep on laboring in order to underwrite someone else’s dreams.

Eventually, the cobweb of liberalism’s pitched fantasy is bound to collapse when the bank finally calls and reports that all available resources are depleted. When that happens, history shows, the fattened politicians simply pack up shop and head for cover – and the lightheaded mob that voted them into office is once again left destitute and holding the bag (an empty bag).

Tragically, in the process of chasing a mirage, our rights and freedoms will have been lost in that fool’s bargain.

As all this drama unfolds, the bigger picture of social collapse and revolution will naturally take on a life of its own. A new, desperately clamoring throng emerges looking for someone to save the day. And, because our determined and methodical president has prepared himself for just such a day, we’ll then painfully discover that he holds all the cards.

If Marx and the big names of socialism could be assembled to review the moves reformer obama has made up to this point, they would joyously stand and give him a teary-eyed ovation for having installed – in just five fast years – every cog of the sinister machine that had been designed to demolish our free capitalist West. And he did all that without so much as even a genuinely threatening investigation from our generally spineless Congress.

Predicting our downfall is not anything that I ever wanted to write. Indeed, just a few years back, I still hadn’t imagined that we would ever really allow the things we have without a fight. But we have.

Years ago, whoever coined the term ‘silent majority’ should have been taken out in the street and horsewhipped. That senseless title gave an air of virtuous credential to the indolent conservative who enjoyed suddenly feeling justified in his laziness. Rather than periodically leaving the comfort of his Barcalounger, beer, and remote – and even minimally participating in our dying democracy – he was handed a lofty-sounding indulgence that seemed to accommodate his selfish, personal peace.

Now we’re ambling along under the misconception that the right conservative candidate will somehow unwind the effects of our sloth and turn everything around for the better. But, even if we found such a man, that won’t work – given that most of us can’t seem to be bothered with even making it to the polls now and then.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-why-obama-will-get-a-third-term/#PMshgGudwYgy3dOv.99

13 Things About America That Would Make The Founding Fathers Turn Over In Their Graves

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.rightwingnews.com

 

Posted by:John Hawkins

Written By :
September 28, 2013

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” — The Declaration of Independence

---

We’re a nation that was founded by principled revolutionaries who took on the superpower of their day over almost insignificant taxes they felt Britain had no right to levy. These men were small government fanatics who felt very comfortable with God, guns, and taking care of themselves. The principles those men put in place and the standards they set were what helped turn America into the most successful nation that has ever existed on God’s green earth.

In order to be fair, it’s worth noting that in some respects, we’ve done a better job of fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers than they were able to accomplish in their lifetimes. We got rid of slavery, became the world’s only superpower, and delivered a level of economic prosperity that wasn’t even dreamed of when men like Ben Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington roamed the earth.

In a time when it’s commonplace to hear intelligent people speculating privately about how long it’s going to be before America experiences a debt-driven economic crash that the country may NEVER recover from, it’s worth considering how far off the rails we’ve gone from what the Founding Fathers originally wanted and intended for this nation. For all of our success, many things that Americans unquestioningly accept today would have been considered intolerable to the Founding Fathers.

In a time when our nation is engaged in unsustainable economic policies that seem likely to put an end to America’s run as a great nation, perhaps it’s time to consider whether our real problem is that we’ve veered so far from the most successful blueprint for a country ever devised that the Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they found out about….

1) Not just 15% of Americans being on food stamps, but the existence of a food stamp program.

2) Forcing Americans to buy health insurance via Obamacare as a condition of American citizenship.

3) Members of Congress voting on bills that they haven’t read.

4) The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, not so much because the Founding Fathers would oppose abortion, although they would, but because the Court is unconstitutionally taking power away from each state to make its own decision.

5) The federal government taxing states and then using that money to blackmail the states into doing what the Feds want to get their own money back.

6) The average government workers making more than the average citizens paying their taxes.

7) In 2010, the average net worth of a senator was 13 million dollars while the net worth of the average American family was $77,300.

8) A permanent income tax.

9) Expelling children from government schools for playing with toy guns on their own property.

10) Having TSA agents putting their hands on people’s crotches and sticking their fingers inside people’s pants at the airports.

11) Having the NSA collect the phone records and emails of hundreds of millions of law abiding Americans.

12) Having Christian prayers, the Ten Commandments, and mentions of God banned in schoolhouses and on government property.

and last but not least….

13) The fact that snooty Brit Piers Morgan is lecturing Americans on TV. Patrick Henry would tell him to shove his fish and chips where the sun doesn’t shine.

Obama’s use of executive power faces reckoning at Supreme Court

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.teaparty.org

 

Posted by:

(The Hill) – Nothing less than the boundaries of executive power are at stake Monday as the Supreme Court considers whether President Obama violated the Constitution during his first term.

Oral arguments slated for Monday will center on a trio of recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that were deemed unconstitutional by lower courts.

If they uphold the decision, experts say the justices could endanger hundreds of NLRB decisions.

Even more significant are the ramifications for future presidents, with the court poised either to bolster or blunt the chief executive’s appointment powers.

“Rulings like this have implications that last for centuries,” said Michael Lotito, an employment and labor attorney and co-chairman of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute.

Presidents have for decades used recess appointment powers when the Senate is away to install judges and fill top federal vacancies that ordinarily would be subject to confirmation proceedings.

But with the disputed NLRB appointments, Obama became the first president to appoint nominees when the Senate was in a “pro-forma” session, when the upper chamber is briefly called to order and adjourned every few days.

The sessions are intended to prevent recess appointments, and usually only a handful of senators are present for them. In filling the NLRB posts, the Obama administration claims that the Senate is generally not available to conduct business during the sessions, so the president’s recess appointment power is in effect.

“The sham pro-forma sessions are nothing more than that,” said Catholic University law professor Victor Williams, who filed a brief backing the government’s position.

The impetus for recess appointments has faded now that Senate Democrats have changed their chamber’s rules to allow for a simple majority vote on presidential nominees. Nevertheless, the case could stunt Obama’s and future presidents’ authority when it comes to staffing administrations.

The case was brought by Noel Canning, an Oregon-based soft drink bottling and distribution company that challenged the appointments as unconstitutional.

In January of last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The appellate court ruling under now review at the Supreme Court found a narrow window for the president to make recess appointments. Under its decision, the president can only make such appointments when the Senate is in recess between sessions of Congress, and only if a vacancy occurred in that same time period.

That goes well against protocol adopted by past Democratic and Republican presidents. A Congressional Service Research report found 329 such appointments since 1981 that would not meet that criteria and would be ruled void if the appeals court decision was law.

Some see the fight against the labor board as a broader effort in which opponents have sought to stymie the Obama administration’s rules and regulations.

“I think the battle against the NLRB over the last few years has been a proxy war about the proper role and scope of government,” said Wilma Liebman, who served as chairwoman of the NLRB from January 2009 to August 2011.

The obscure agency has become ground zero in that war, pitting business against labor and Republicans against Democrats.

The private sector mobilized a massive lobbying campaign after Obama’s election, fearing a Democratic president might enact a host of policy changes favorable to unions.

The effort first targeted legislation that would ease union organizing, but shifted to the NLRB nominees and its decisions.

“There has been an especially rancorous degree of controversy whipped around the NLRB. It got swept up with the Employee Free Choice Act,” Liebman said.

The NLRB has had its decisions overturned by the high court before. In 2010, the Supreme Court found the board lacked the authority to make decisions for more than two years because it only had two members — one short of a quorum.

About 600 NLRB decisions were made in that time period, and the board was forced to go back through about 100 of them.

Liebman said it was a time-consuming process, but one the labor board could do again.

“We issued new decisions in a relatively short period of time. We had a process in place and went methodically back through them,” Liebman said. “It took some time that we could have spent doing other things. It wasn’t the end of the world.”

But having to turn its focus on previous decisions could sidetrack the NLRB from what is seen as an activist agenda at a critical moment, said Lolito, whose firm represents employers.

The board is now at full strength for the first time in years, and was expected to tackle numerous issues involving union elections.

“If this board has to spend the next good couple of years looking backward instead of forward, many in the employer community would say that’s good news,” he said.

In Monday’s arguments, attorneys with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will argue on behalf of Noel Canning that the NLRB operated without a quorum for well over a year, causing confusion for both employers and employees.

“We look forward to the much needed clarity that the Supreme Court’s decision will bring,” said Lily Fu Claffee, the Chamber’s general counsel.

The Obama administration’s case hinges on winning three points, according to Georgetown University Law Center’s Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who is arguing against the government.

First, it must convince the justices that presidents may make appointments during regular recesses and not, as the appeals court ruled, only during the breaks between numbered sessions on Congress.

Next, the court must agree that the appointments may include the filling of vacancies that existed before the recess began, rather than those that occurred during a recess.

Finally, it must conclude that the pro-forma sessions do not count as formal sessions of Congress.

Proving all three points, particularly the last, would be a tall order, said Rosenkranz, who predicted a 9-0 ruling in favor of Noel Canning.

“I don’t think this is a close case,” he said.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/195155-supreme-court-to-decide-the-limits-of-executive-

– See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/obamas-use-executive-power-faces-reckoning-supreme-court-33090/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.lkDhQFk9.dpuf

Why Bridgegate made headlines but Obama’s IRS scandal didn’t

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://nypost.com

 

Posted by:JOHN PODHORETZ

 

Photo: Illustration by Leah Tiscione

Most government scandals involve the manipulation of the system in obscure ways by people no one has ever heard of. That is why George Washington Bridgegate is nearly a perfect scandal — because it is comprehensible and (as they say in Hollywood) “relatable” to everyone who has ever been in a car. This is the reason this one is not going to go away so easily, even if one accepts the contention that Gov. Chris Christie had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Government officials and political operatives working for Christie, for weird and petty reasons, chose to make traffic worse. That’s the takeaway. When they are reminded of the fact that people working on Christie’s behalf thought it was a good political game to mire tens of thousands of their fellow Americans in the nightmarish gridlock that is a daily dreaded prospect for tens of millions, they will be discomfited by that and by the politician in whose name it was done.

And yet, you know what is also something everybody would find “relatable”? Politicians who sic the tax man on others for political gain. Everybody has to deal with the IRS and fears it. Last year, we learned from the Internal Revenue Service itself that it had targeted ideological opponents of the president for special scrutiny and investigation — because they were ideological opponents.

That’s juicy, just as Bridgegate is juicy. It’s something we can all understand, it speaks to our greatest fears, and it’s the sort of thing TV newspeople could gab about for days on end without needing a fresh piece of news to keep it going.

And yet, according to Scott Wheelock of the Media Research Center, “In less than 24 hours, the three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.”

Why? Oh, come on, you know why. Christie belongs to one political party. Obama belongs to the other. You know which ones they belong to. And you know which ones the people at the three networks belong to, too: In surveys going back decades, anywhere from 80% to 90% of Washington’s journalists say they vote Democratic.

Scandals are not just about themselves; they are about the media atmosphere that surrounds them. They are perpetuated and deepened by the attention of journalists, whose relentless pursuit of every angle keeps the story going. That is exactly what has been missing from the IRS scandal from its outset; Republicans in Congress have been the dogged pursuers, not the press.

There was plenty of material. Just as journalists remain skeptical today about who exactly might have gotten the idea for the lane closures, they could have been asking without letup who got the idea to dig into conservative tax-status applications. Several officials at the IRS resigned, retired and took the Fifth, just as was the case with Christie-aligned Port Authority officials.

It’s pretty clear the questions about how high up Bridgegate went are going to be pursued far more diligently than they have been in the IRS case.

What gives?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding among conservatives about the causes of partisan media bias — the reason there is unequal coverage of scandals of this kind. It exists not because there is a conscious effort to soft-pedal bad news for politicians you like and to push hard on bad news for politicians you don’t.

It’s actually more personal — more relatable, shall we say—than that.

Journalists know the Obamans. Intimately. They know them from college, they know them from work, they know them from kids’ soccer. They’re literally married to them.

To the journalists, the Obamans don’t look like crooks and cheats. Far from it. For them, it’s like looking in a mirror.

In September, Elspeth Reeve of The Atlantic Wire took note of 24 major journalists who have taken posts at senior levels in the Obama administration. All of them have worked for decades in various news organizations, thus creating personal ties and bonds of affection with literally hundreds of working reporters and editors.

The journalists are not covering up for their friends and their spouses. They just believe the people they know could not be responsible for behaving badly, or cravenly, or for crass political advantage —and the tone they strike when such things are discussed is often one of offense, as though it is a sign of low character to believe otherwise. It would be, well, like believing the journalists themselves were crooks.

It’s fair to say that most conservatives don’t know people in the Obama administration, and they dislike and disagree with its policies. When they look at it, their dislike and lack of any personal connection make it easier for them to see officials mired in scandal and tush-covering cover-up. This is a direct analogue to the way liberals — of whom journalists comprise a central cohort — viewed the George W. Bush and Reagan administrations.

They saw people with whom they disagreed and who they thought were bad for the country and so found it much easier to believe they were acting out of malign motive and doing evil.

Christie may be entirely innocent of all wrongdoing. Or there may be some connection, even a very tenuous and suggestive one. But there will be little let-up now.

For in the end, because Christie is a Republican. Christie isn’t them.

SEE A SHRINK, LOSE YOUR GUN

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:BOB UNRUH

New ‘rules’ would suspend 2nd Amendment even for ‘outpatient’ treatment

In an end-of-week “information dump” often resorted to by political leaders to publicly release information they would like overlooked, President Obama formally has launched his much-feared expansion of the use of mental health diagnoses to crack down on gun ownership.

The Obama Department of Homeland Security already is on record casting aspersions on the mental ability of returning veterans, third-party candidate supporters and people with pro-life bumper stickers – calling them potential “right-wing extremists.” It was also caught, through the IRS, targeting conservative organizations that might be critical of Obama.

So critics of the administration long have warned the move would come. On Friday, it did.

Obama announced that his Department of Justice is proposing a rule change that would “clarify” that being committed to a mental institution – a key red flag under gun ownership rules – would include receiving nebulous “outpatient” services from a professional, such as a psychiatrist.

The president said his Health and Human Services agency is issuing a rule to pierce the privacy protections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so there would be “express permission” for “entities” to hand over to the federal government certain medical records – that is, “information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands.”

WND reported six months ago on alarms raised by various groups over this issue.

At the time, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, warned that the administration was widening the door for those subject to a “mental” deficiency definition, looking for ways to send people to a mental institution for “mental defectiveness or mental illness” or “for other reasons.”

“The phrase ‘for other reasons’ is overly broad and vague,” EPIC said. “Although the DOJ has illustrated that drug use is an example of ‘commitments for other reasons,’ the nebulous language would grant the DOJ sweeping authority to prohibit individuals from possessing firearms, a constitutionally protected right.”

The privacy advocates warned: “Until the DOJ clearly defines and enumerates the types of formal commitments that can bar gun ownership, HHS should not amend its regulations to release sensitive mental health information to the DOJ.”

The Obama administration’s gun-control agenda accelerated after the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012. It then began to press for “closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands,” a ban on “military-style” weapons and some ammunition magazines, as well as “making schools safer” and improving mental health services.

See the real details about the Second Amendment in the Whistleblower issue on “Firearms and Freedom: Why the Second Amendment is more important than ever.”

But the vague generalities used to describe the plans have worried privacy advocates and Second Amendment supporters.

‘Wrong hands’

On Friday, Obama announced his executive actions to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

“Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence,” his statement said. “While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.”

That, he wrote, explains the need for the DOJ rule “to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm” and the HHS rule change is “to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information … to the federal background check system.”

His statement noted that Obama already has directed federal agencies to hand over criminal records and other “information” about those who are prohibited from having guns “for mental health reasons.”

And he spent $20 million to “improve incentives for states” to hand over background check information to the federal government. He’s proposing to spend $50 million on that in 2014.

At the Washington Times, commentator Michael E. Hammond said, “The real agenda of the gun-hating Obama administration is to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans, even if the result is to discourage people from seeking counseling.”

He asked: “Do you really think a hunter or gun owner feels somehow less violated when, as a result of sharing his deepest secrets in confidence, his name is turned over to government as either a dangerous or incompetent person and – as has happened – a SWAT team is sent to his house to seize his guns?”

It was just a year ago that Obama announced 23 executive actions aimed at curbing gun rights. Then Congress handed him a massive defeat, refusing to go along with some of the more reaching plans to curb gun ownership.

The federal government admits it already has banned from gun ownership those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, or otherwise have been determined through an adjudication process to have a severe mental condition.

Judicial records

The mental health records come from the judiciary, not the health system.

Now the federal government wants access to all such records from health care providers, too.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center said the best way to handle the federal government’s plans would be to leave in place the protections provided for consumers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s Privacy Rule, which doesn’t allow such discussions of diagnoses or treatment.

EPIC said at the time if changes are made, there need to be clear protections.

“HHS should assign liability to states that disclose excess mental health data for NICS purposes,” the comments said. “HHS should mandate states notify NICS as soon as possible but no [later] than 10 business days of an incorrect or outdated mental illness record.”

Said EPIC: “There are not enough adequate privacy protections in place, under state law or otherwise, for data collected by state entities for reporting to the NICS. … Many states do not have privacy laws that explicitly address privacy protection of mental health records and availability to the NICS.”

WND also has reported on another anti-gun strategy, which is a possible explanation for why the Obama administration has failed to launch legal action against Colorado and Washington, where voters have voted to legalize marijuana under their state laws, even though federal law doesn’t allow it.

Some have asked if there something about the idea of legalizing marijuana that Washington likes. The idea may have been borne out recently when the Congressional Research Service released its report on the “State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues.”

As attorneys Todd Garvey and Brian Yeh wrote in the report, Washington has flexibility regarding drug prosecution, stating: “The extent to which federal authorities will actually seek to prosecute individuals who are engaged in marijuana-related activities in Colorado and Washington remains uncertain. President Obama himself has suggested the prosecuting simple possession is not a priority, while the Department of Justice has said only that ‘growing, selling or possession any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.’”

What is more certain, they wrote, is that federal firearms regulators will be aggressive about banning anyone who uses marijuana from buying – or possessing – a weapon.

“With the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado and Washington, it seems likely the ATF will … consider a recreational user of marijuana to be a prohibited possessor of firearms regardless of whether the use is lawful under state provisions,” they wrote.

The attorneys said the ATF specifically has stated “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

They further wrote, “These individuals are to answer ‘yes’ when asked on the firearms transfer form if they are unlawful users of a controlled substance.”

Targeting veterans

Also, the government has been using its interaction with veterans to designate many of them – by the tens of thousands – incapable of handling their own financial affairs and, therefore, banned from having guns.

A lawsuit was just filed by the United States Justice Foundation against the Veterans Administration for snatching veterans’ gun rights without “due process” or any “factual or legal basis.”

WND has published reports about how returning veterans were being deprived of their Second Amendment rights without a court-based adjudication competency process, based on arbitrary VA agency decisions.

The problem arises when the agency wants to appoint a fiduciary – someone to advise a disabled veteran or one receiving certain government benefits – to help with the management of the benefits.

The government then routinely notifies the FBI’s NICS system, a federally maintained list of those whose competency has been challenged. That means they no longer can purchase a gun or even keep the one they may have.

Michael Connelly, executive director of the USJF, told WND the initial lawsuit is to compel the VA to respond to two requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The information requested included Veterans Benefits Administration rules, regulations and criteria for making ‘determinations of incompetency due to a physical or mental condition of a benefit recipient,’” the legal team explained.

“The USJF has received numerous complaints from military veterans around the country who are being declared incompetent to handle their own financial affairs and then told that they can no longer purchase or own firearms or ammunition,” said Connelly. “This determination is being made without due process protections for the veterans and the basis for the incompetency ruling is often arbitrary and without a factual or legal basis.”

Just a month ago, WND columnist Jeff Knox warning about Obama’s newly announced strategy.

A front

“The strategy is to use the wide acceptance of the idea that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms as a front for prohibiting a broad array of ‘normal’ people from possessing guns or ammunition. As with most things, the devil is in the details. What is mental illness? Who is mentally ill? How mentally ill must one be to warrant revocation of a fundamental human right? Who makes that determination? Who is ‘normal,’ and how ‘normal’ do they have to be to own guns? We all know people who have dealt with some mental health issues or who people consider a bit odd, but who are also fully functional, completely rational, good people who would never harm anyone. The new anti-rights strategy is to cast doubts on those people and deny them their rights to own guns and ammunition.”

Knox also reported his sources confirm the strategy of using “emergency” legislation to “pass draconian bills with no hearings, no committee votes and no public input” that would further “control” firearms.

“While this anti-rights sneak attack is just getting under way, you can be sure it is well-planned and well-funded, so expect to see a flood of bills dealing with mental health in general and firearms access by the mentally ill in particular introduced in Congress and state legislatures nationwide in the coming months,” Knox wrote.

“These bills will be promoted as ‘common sense,’ but they will contain definitions so broad that hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of regular folks who have been or are being successfully treated for common, minor, mental and emotional issues will be denied their right to arms as ‘mental defectives.’ People suffering from mild depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, even women treated for PMS, could be lumped in with violent schizophrenics and the criminally insane.”

And be banned from having a firearm.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/see-a-shrink-lose-your-gun/#1QYva5tgeF6sQxsw.99

GENERAL CEMENTS PLAN TO END OBAMA’S REIGN

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:DREW ZAHN

What to do about the alleged unconstitutional and unlawful actions of President Barack Obama?

Some have proposed marches. Others hearings. Some have demanded the president’s resignation. Some have called for impeachment, even though a Democrat-controlled Senate would be unlikely to oust their party’s leader.

Polls show Americans of all parties are upset with the direction of the country, but what can they actually do to make a difference?

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, as chairman of Stand Up America, has been at the forefront of many of these rallying cries, encouraging Americans to take action in a number of ways.

But now the former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army in the Pacific has settled upon a battle plan he believes could actually work: a House-led, parliamentary style vote of “no confidence” in Obama’s administration.

“I have already achieved a level of ‘no confidence’ in Obama as a leader, but now I urge you to examine this concept,” Vallely wrote in an email to supporters obtained by WND. “If you agree with me that all confidence is lost, I urge you to then ask yourself what is in the realm of the possible. I implore you to push aside the urge to try and fix everything in one fell swoop.

“Now is the time for something a dear friend calls ‘conviction without eviction,’ an end that can be brought on through a vote of no confidence, locally, statewide and nationally,” Vallely claims. “This is just a first step in what can only be repaired over time, but it is achievable in the short term and starts to remove Obama’s ability to continue his ruinous ways now.”

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (ret.)

In a blog post on the battle plan posted Dec. 15, the general explained he already has a man on the ground in Washington working to make it happen.

Vallely quotes “a prominent Washington, D.C., insider with whom Stand Up America is coordinating –and who prefers to remain under the radar for the moment while conferring with potential House co-sponsors on both the basic rationale and the detailed content of such a House Resolution of no confidence” as offering the following justification for this novel course of action:

“First, in most of the world’s so-called ‘democracies’ – actually, multi-party constitutional republics – a formal vote of ‘no confidence’ by the Lower House suspends or greatly limits the governing authority of the party in power and, in a ‘recall’ of sorts, mandates new elections within 30-60 days,” the insider reportedly reasons. “Although we have no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law, 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 of the reasons stated in such a resolution.

“Second,” he reasons, “it would be much easier to cosponsor [than impeachment articles], to be formally adopted by the House and to achieve what might be called Obama’s ‘conviction without eviction’ – in which wholesale repudiation by the House, loss of control of the Senate and a substantial diminution of power and influence during his remaining time in office would be the penalties.

“We know there is no legal standing in a vote of ‘no confidence’ that would come of this act, but at least one thing will certainly occur: We take back the power of discourse,” the insider contends. “What do we do? We conduct a national ‘vote of no confidence.’”

“We cannot possibly believe that impeachment is attainable, and we know he will never resign,” Vallely adds, “but at least we can show other leaders the way; show our collective voices that we have no confidence in [Obama].”

Vellely contends the vote also would defuse some of the partisan finger-pointing that infects not only D.C. but the entire country.

“You are not calling anyone names, or labeling others. You are not trying to encapsulate each and every event,” he explains. “Rather, what you are doing is telling the world that ‘I have no confidence in him or his team anymore.’ They cannot take that away from you or attack you for it.

“A vote of ‘no confidence,’ albeit symbolic, at least focuses the discussion on something you can own as I own. This ownership is in your opinion; one based in fact and close analysis, not in emotion, ‘talking points’ or ulterior motives,” Vallely continued. “If asked or challenged tomorrow by his supporters that my lack of confidence is a political ploy, I will say, ‘No, I own my conclusions, I own my opinions and I have a deep sense of no confidence in Obama.’

“The House of Representatives must follow our lead and take up a resolution of no confidence,” the general contends.

Vallely’s calls to action have been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other examples they cite as evidence of disregard for law and the Constitution are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

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

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.”

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.

“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 in December.

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:

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/2014/01/general-cements-plan-to-end-obamas-reign/#CvgJovFGHSdZUi4R.99

‘Decimated’ Al-Qaeda Captures Fallujah!

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:John Lillpop 

While Barack Obama vacationed in comfort and luxury in Hawaii, his foreign policy disasters continued to wreak havoc throughout the world.

This time it is the city of Fallujah, Iraq, scene of one of the bloodiest battles that US Marines fought in 2004.

As reported, that city has been captured by Al-Qaeda, the ‘decimated’ enemy:

BEIRUT — A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago.

The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war.

In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011.”

To those American families who lost brave warriors in Fallujah, this news is particularly distressing, since Obama’s policy is akin to spitting on the graves of those brave Americans who gave their all in the name of freedom and good.

To Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who unquestioningly support Obama: Is the latest from Fallujah yet another smashing foreign-policy VICTORY for The One?

 

3 Unbelievable Food Stamp Statistics in America

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.capitalisminstitute.org

 

Food stamps cover steak, lobster, and caviar.

Yesterday, I made an image to post on Facebook explaining this, and it went viral. As of right now, almost 2,000 people have shared it, and plenty of people have reacted in anger, explaining that I hate the poor. I’ve deleted several comments telling me to go to Hell, telling me I’m a Nazi, and telling me I hate babies.

This is, of course, absurd. But let’s ignore the angry rhetoric and look at what’s actually going on when it comes to food stamps. People are horrified to talk about this, because they’ll instantly be labeled bad words, and theft has become a way of life in a post-bailout America.

But this is Capitalism Institute — the goal is to speak the truth no matter whose toes are stepped on.

Unbelievable Statistics About Food Stamps

This isn’t just a fringe problem. Food stamps are becoming an inherent part of American life as almost every grocery line has someone using a debit card filled with other peoples’ money to spend on whatever they choose. In fact:

• Over 45,000,000 Americans are on food stamps. That means 1 in 7. To visualize this, that means every pew in every church is filled with someone who is living — literally — off the money of everyone else sitting on that pew. Not family members, not kids living off parents — adults living off of other adults.

• Food stamps cover luxury items like lobster and filet mignon. An image circulated a few days ago of a receipt in which someone had $200+ worth of lobster tail and Mountain Dew and paid for it with a food stamp card. The grocery store confirmed it was true. When I was poor, I ate rice and beans and worried about paying my bills on time. For those on food stamps, eating cheaply isn’t necessary. This is disgusting, and is a backwards incentive. When I was poor I had a friend who began smoking pot an living off of welfare, bragging at how easy it was. Lives are ruined when you have broken policy.

• A family of five gets $700+ for food alone. However, people who are on food stamps get at least $100 per person, on average alone. That means people who are actually poor receive well over this per person. From the federal government alone, a family of five can receive $793 per month, not including the 180 free meals also offered at public school for the school-aged kids.

This is just food stamps alone. This isn’t about housing welfare, free college payments, infant assistance, free public schooling, or actual cash from the government. This is the food program alone. For many people, it makes far more sense to eat salmon on food stamps than to accept a part time job and risk losing the “free” money.

People on welfare eat better than many people in the middle class who don’t qualify. That is wrong. And no, this isn’t just an occasional bit of fraud. This is what the system is supposed to do. Someone told me yesterday that he worked in a grocery store, told a lady that food stamps didn’t cover the dog food she picked, so she went back and got t-bones.

That should upset you.

If you support welfare existing to stop starvation from being possible, then that’s one thing. I get it. Babies dying of malnutrition isn’t exactly what the goal is. But there’s no way around the fact that welfare should be reformed, cut, and that we should focus on giving tax cuts to the middle class to make it easier to leave poverty in the first place.

Why Welfare Reform Matters

Why does this matter? Because 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. Average it out, and almost every house in America has a welfare recipient in food stamps alone — not counting Social Security, disability, or the billions in other programs.

This is insane. And to the libertarians reading this — this should upset you just as much as corporate welfare, if not more, because these people are voters. At some point, that number is going to be so high that it won’t matter anymore, because defeating a socialist when half the voters are getting checks will be impossible.

This isn’t about being anti-poor. This is about saving the republic and saving capitalism. Poor people not getting free lobsters at the cost of the middle class is just basic common sense — but if you dare say this in public, you’ll be demonized.

This isn’t a theoretical risk in the future. This is right now. The system is working as it’s planned to work — to create a dependent class of people who will vote for any socialist because they want cash and all the food they can eat. This is wrong. And that’s why welfare reform matters.

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

America on The Verge of Martial Law, DHS Insider Says Big Events Imminent

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://thelibertydigest.com

 

Posted by:Notta Govslave

“The U.S. is a captured operation. The lie is bigger than most people realize or are willing to confront.” That’s the final boil down of an article by Doug Hagmann as he details what he describes as his final meeting with his DHS inside informant.

That informant, whom he calls “Rosebud”, is leaving his position with DHS, retiring as a means of escaping the bureaucratic monstrosity. Their meeting is made more difficult by the cultural fear tactics now being employed by FEMA and DHS department heads. There are departmental policies which are being strictly enforced to seek out any potential leaks and leakers for termination and possible criminal prosecution.

“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” Rosebud said, “No one trusts anyone else and sources are drying up. The threats being made go beyond what has been seen in the past, including threats against people’s lives and those of their families.

Regarding people’s response to his information, he said, “take it or leave it, disregard it at your own peril. It’s up to each American to act on the information for themselves or suffer the consequences.”

He claims to have seen internal documents which show preparations have been finalized for the response to an upcoming crisis. This crisis is not specifically identified, as all information and operations are compartmentalized. Whatever the event or events are, the scale will be overwhelming and unparalleled. The response will include the use of lethal force against American citizens under the direction of B. Hussein Obama.

The foundation of the crisis will be an economic collapse. Those who are waiting for a “big bang” to signal the beginning are off the mark. The big bang will come at the end, when people wake up one morning and simply don’t have access to their finances. Their ATM cards, and bank accounts won’t respond; they will learn that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated.

Rosebud said he uses the word created when describing the events as this will be a completely manufactured event. With the initial event underway, a secondary event will take place concurrently or immediately thereafter, to confuse and compound the disruption caused by the events.

Of the several scenarios discussed, the most commonly agreed upon initial event will be some type of cyber attack. That will be an internally driven ruse, but it will be effective in getting people off balance and setting them up for the second event.

That second event is likely to be a terror attack of major proportions upon the US and on US soil.

The government response will be just what has been expected, controls and restrictions on travel, business, and every aspect of our daily lives in America. Particular attention will be given to gun owners and those whose speech incites people to rise up against the government. This is the beginning of what many would call Martial law.

There exists a relationship today between DHS and the executive branch that would be alarming to most Americans, if they were aware of it. DHS has become that private army of the White House which Hussein Obama described in the 2008 campaign. The NSA and IRS also take their orders directly from the Occupant of the White House.

The instructions that Hussein Obama gives are subject to the wishes of his superiors in the global government. They are the ones who put him into power in the first place.

He is their lackey, an actor playing a role who does just as he is told. Decades of planning have gone into this operation.

In closing Rosebud reminds us that this situation exemplifies the need to enforce the Logan Act. The Logan Act is a federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. By enforcing the Logan Act we could put most of the criminals in DC behind bars, for starters.

http://thelibertydigest.com

‘UNIVERSE-SHATTERING’ TWIST IN OBAMA BIRTH PROBE

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:BOB UNRUH

 

Arpaio investigator: ‘This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine’

Lead Investigator

The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate says the case has taken a startling turn, and sheriff’s investigators now are assisting the Cold Case volunteers.

“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”

Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.

But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate, could be public as early as March.

The issue arose once again because of the death Wednesday in Hawaii of state Health Department chief Loretta Fuddy in a plane crash. She was the official who waived state prohibitions and provided to the White House a copy of a document that Obama presented to the public as his birth certificate.

It’s the document that Arpaio’s investigators have concluded is fraudulent.

Amid conspiracy theories circulating the Internet, Zullo told WND Friday that Fuddy’s death – she was the only fatality among nine people aboard a small airplane that crashed off the coast of Molokai – appears to be a tragic accident, not foul play.

He said his investigation does not depend on any information from Fuddy.

In an interview today with author and talk-radio host Carl Gallups of PPSimmons News and Ministry Network and the author of “The Magic Man in the Sky,” and the new “The Rabbi who Found Messiah,” Zullo said his investigation of the Obama fraud case “does not hinge on Ms. Fuddy.”

“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter,” he said. “If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned.

“Again, I want to emphasize,” Zullo said, “Sheriff Arpaio and I do not, at this time, believe her death was connected to any nefarious circumstances.”

The birth certificate dispute dates back to before the 2008 election. Critics, including Hillary Clinton, raised the issue about Obama’s status as a “natural-born citizen.” Not defined in the Constitution, it probably was thought at the time of the writing of the Constitution to be someone born of two citizen parents.

Obama fails that test because his father was a Kenyan student visiting the U.S.

Arpaio assigned his Cold Case Posse to look into the issue before the 2012 election, when constituents approached him and asked him to check whether Obama would be an ineligible candidate on the presidential election ballot.

In a recent radio interview with Gallups, Zullo affirmed the investigation had been expanded to the county sheriff’s office and was “moving in a direction that was not anticipated by us.”

“The whole [issue] is more nefarious than you can imagine,” Zullo said, crediting Arpaio for ordering the investigation and sticking with it.

“He knows in his gut that something is wrong,” Zullo said.

AIRLINE CRASH

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed without success. One case is pending before the Alabama Supreme Court for which Zullo provided evidence.

See a report of Fuddy’s death:

Still a live issue

Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

“Mr. Obama has, in fact, not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”

Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

See some of Zullo’s evidence:

Zullo’s evidence

More recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.

“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.

“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.

Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.

Investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported this month that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.

He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an investigation of the authenticity of document.

Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann said.

“Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit,” wrote Hagmann.

“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the ‘signature’ of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit.”

Grounds for impeachment

Last month, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment.”

“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton wrote.

“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens.”

He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”

“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.

“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”

‘You tell me about eligibility’

Donald Trump

One of the highest profile skeptics has been billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can’t, either.

Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if he would release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records.

Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him from being a “natural-born citizen.”

Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.

“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.”

Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was born in the United States, do you?”

“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”

When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.

“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.”

Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

Monckton, citing Zullo’s sworn affidavit in a court case, published a sworn mathematical analysis demonstrating the near-zero probability that the White House “birth certificate” is genuine.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/universe-shattering-twist-in-obama-birth-probe/#Jij0dp7mQbbC14xA.99

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’

 

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

 

Be prepared: Wall Street advisor recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse

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://washingtonexaminer.com

 

Posted by:PAUL BEDARD

Image from Marotta‘s website warning investors to prepare a “bug-out” bag in case of a fiscal…Image from Marotta’s website warning investors to prepare a “bug-out” bag in case of a fiscal…

A top financial advisor, worried that Obamacare, the NSA spying scandal and spiraling national debt is increasing the chances for a fiscal and social disaster, is recommending that Americans prepare a “bug-out bag” that includes food, a gun and ammo to help them stay alive.

David John Marotta, a Wall Street expert and financial advisor and Forbes contributor, said in a note to investors, “Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list. There are some terrible people in this world. And you are safer when your trusted neighbors have firearms.”

His memo is part of a series addressing the potential for a “financial apocalypse.” His view, however, is that the problems plaguing the country won’t result in armageddon. “There is the possibility of a precipitous decline, although a long and drawn out malaise is much more likely,” said the Charlottesville, Va.-based president of Marotta Wealth Management.

Marotta said that many clients fear an end-of-the-world scenario. He doesn’t agree with that outcome, but does with much of what has people worried.

“I, along with many other economists, agree with many of the concerns expressed in these dire warnings. The growing debt and deficitspending is a tax on those holding dollars. The devaluation in the U.S. dollar risks the dollar’s status as the reserve currency of the world. Obamacare was the worst legislation in the past 75 years. Socialism is on the rise and the NSA really is abrogating vast portions of the Constitution. I don’t disagree with their concerns,” he wrote.

In his latest note, he said that Americans should have a survival kit to take in case of a financial or natural disaster. It should be filled with items that will help them stay alive for the first 72-hours of a crisis, including firearms.

“A bug-out bag is a good idea depending on where you live even if the emergency is just power outages, earthquakes and hurricanes. And with your preparedness you will be equipped to help others who might be in need,” he wrote. “Be prepared. Especially because it keeps you from being scared.”

He provided a list of items and even a link to bug-out bags on Amazon.

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

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

December 24, 2013

President Obama — not 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.

Mark Levin warns: Obama preparing country for coup against Constitution

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

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Earlier this week, conservative talk show host Mark Levin warned that Barack Obama is campaigning and preparing the country for what amounts to a coup against the Constitution over the debt ceiling, Breitbart.com reported Sunday.

Levin said that it’s clear Obama has moved on from the shutdown and is now focused on the debt ceiling, paving the way for low-information liberals to support him as he bypasses Congress and unilaterally seizes control of the nation’s economy, Dr. Susan Berry wrote..

“Default, default, default…why is he saying that? Just to scare people?” Levin asked. “Well, that’s part of it, obviously. But, it’s more than that, ladies and gentlemen. Barack Obama is plotting, that if he can’t get what he wants out of the House Republicans, that if he can’t get his Plan A, and get Boehner and the Republicans to buckle – not just on the Continuing Resolution – but on the debt ceiling, then he’s got his Plan B.”

And what, exactly is “Plan B?”

According to Levin, that plan involves Obama unilaterally raising the debt ceiling by citing the 14th Amendment.

In essence, Levin said, Obama effectively plans to “seize from Congress the power of the purse” in what he called “the most egregious attack on our Constitution by a President” in all of U.S. history.

Examiner’s Anthony G. Martinsaid the 14th Amendment does not give Obama the authority to usurp Congress’ role regarding the debt ceiling.

“Nowhere does the Amendment mandate that overall federal spending be increased at the whim of a president, or anyone else in government, not even Congress,” he wrote.

Levin went further, saying that Obama is being encouraged “by Marxists dressed up as Constitutionalists, by people in his own party, he’s being encouraged to conduct himself as a dictator, and to bypass Congressand to bypass the Constitution.”

“They want a full-blown Constitutional crisis. Please, listen to me, this is what they want! So they can continue to shred it!” he added.

This isn’t the first time the subject has been brought up.

Last December, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Obama should be given dictatorial power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling to infinity.

In July 2011, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, urged Obama to rule like a dictator on the debt ceiling. Other Democrats, like James Clyburn and former President Bill Clinton, have also suggested Obama bypass Congress and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.

Levin went on to warn listeners of dire consequences to the nation if Obama acts unilaterally.

“So, it is he who is prepared to extort and blackmail in ways that most of you, and most of my colleagues in this business can’t even imagine, or don’t even understand,” he said. “And, if the President of the United States unilaterally lifts the debt ceiling, you can kiss the core functions of Congress goodbye, you can kiss this Republic goodbye, once and for all.”

Indeed, it would be the ultimate “fundamental transformation” Obama promised at the beginning of his presidency.

 

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

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.

 

Obama Took More Vacation on Average Than Private-Sector Workers 20 Yrs on 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://cnsnews.com

 

Posted by:Ali Meyer

(AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, who is departing Friday for a vacation in Hawaii that will reportedly last until Jan. 5, took more annual vacation days on average in his first term than the average private-sector worker gets after 20 years on the job.

Obama took an average of 21.5 vacations days per year in his first four years as president. By comparison, private-industry workers in the United States who have at least 20 years on the job get an average of 19 days of paid vacation per year.

The Government Accountability Institute, headed by Peter Schweizer (who is also a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University), published a study of President Obama’s calendar on April 28, 2013 that included an accounting of the vacation days the president took from his inauguration on January 20, 2009 through March 2013.

According to GAI’s accounting, Obama took 21 vacation days in 2009, 34 in 2010, 20 in 2011, 7 during his re-election-campaign year of 2012, and 4 in January 2013 before his second inauguration on Jan. 20, 2013 marked the end of his first four years in office.

The 86 cumulative vacation days that Obama took in his first four years in office worked out to an average of 21.5 days per year.

Even if you do not count the four days of vacation Obama took in early January 2013—before the end of his fourth year in office on January 20, 2013—the 82 days of cumulative vacation he took in his first four calendar years in office equals an average of 20.5 per year, which is still more than the 19 paid vacation days per year that the average private-industry worker gets after 20 years on the job.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers in private industry get an average of 10 days of paid vacation after they have been at the job one year; they get an average of 14 days paid vacation after they have been at the job five years; 17 days after they have been at the job 10 years;and 19 days after they have been at the job 20 years.

– See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/obama-took-more-vacation-average-private-sector-workers-20-yrs-job-0#sthash.zt2jUO1y.dpuf

 

Special Ops Vets SLAM Congress, Pension Cuts

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://americanmilitarynews.com

 

Posted by:

Veteran members of U.S. Special Operations Forces have begun to speak out against the budget deal that cuts military pensions as a method of paying for government spending.

Thank God these heroes are speaking out and making their voice heard! This deal was a slap in the face to those who sacrifice their lives daily for our freedom.

“It is shameful that the government is targeting the retirement pensions of men and women who put their lives on the line for their country,” said Gary Stubblefield, a retired Navy SEAL Commander and chairman of Special Operations for America “Congress needs to find a way to reduce spending without burdening our retired military with benefit cuts that are borne only by them, and not their civilian counterparts.”

---

Former members of U.S. special operations forces on Thursday demanded President Obama veto the budget bill Congress just passed, saying that the cuts to military retirement benefits — which even the bill’s authors now admit were a partial mistake — are an insult to veterans.

“As commander in chief, President Obama is the leader of the nation’s armed forces and he has a duty to protect the interests of all military members, both active and retired. He needs to veto the bill,” said Gary Stubblefield, a retired Navy SEAL Commander and chairman of Special Operations for America.

The new budget, which boosts spending in the short term in exchange for longer-term fee hikes and spending cuts, includes a provision that would reduce the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees to 1 percent less than the rate of consumer inflation — and even reduces payments for veterans who were wounded in action.

It will go into effect in 2015 and is expected to save more than $6 billion over 10 years.

“It is shameful that the government is targeting the retirement pensions of men and women who put their lives on the line for their country,” Mr. Stubblefield said. “Congress needs to find a way to reduce spending without burdening our retired military with benefit cuts that are borne only by them, and not their civilian counterparts.”

The budget bill passed the House last week and the Senate on Wednesday, and will now head to Mr. Obama.

Sen. Patty Murray, chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee and one of the chief authors along with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, admitted the reduction in benefits for wounded veterans was a mistake.

Now the Washington state Democrat and other lawmakers have vowed to pass a fix — though it’s unclear whether it will cover all veterans or just the disabled.

– See more at: http://americanmilitarynews.com/2013/12/special-ops-vets-slam-congress-pension-cuts/#sthash.MvQa9A5s.dpuf

 

Ten Broken Obamacare Promises

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.heritage.org

 

Posted by:Alyene Senger

Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, many of the President’s famous promises have been routinely broken. As he so ironically threatened in 2009, “If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out.”[1] To that end, here are 10 promises of Obamacare that have already proved to be broken.

Promise #1: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”[2]

Reality: Millions of Americans have lost and will lose their coverage due to Obamacare.

Obamacare has significantly disrupted the market for those who buy coverage on their own by imposing new coverage and benefit mandates, causing a reported 4.7 million health insurance cancelations of an existing policy in 32 states.[3]

For those with employer-sponsored insurance in the group market, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance by 2018.[4]

Moreover, the Administration itself has admitted that employers would not keep their existing health plans. Federal regulations written in 2010 estimated that 51 percent of small and large employers would lose their “grandfathered status” by 2013—meaning a majority of employers would not keep their existing health plans.[5]

Promise #2: “[T]hat means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”[6]

Reality: Many Americans might not be able to keep their current doctor without paying extra.

Many plans offered on Obamacare’s exchanges have very limited provider networks, decreasing the chances consumers will be able to keep their current doctor without paying more money.[7] Furthermore, many Americans who purchase coverage on their own have had their existing health plans changed or canceled due to Obamacare, resulting in some people being unable to keep their current doctors without paying additional money to do so.

Due to the significant payment reductions included in Obamacare, seniors with Medicare Advantage plans may be forced to find new doctors. The largest provider of these plans, UnitedHealth, has recently reduced its provider networks in several states.[8]

Promise #3: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”[9]

Reality: Premiums for people purchasing coverage in the individual market have significantly increased in a majority of states.

A Heritage analysis shows that, on average, consumers in 42 states will see their premiums in the exchanges increase, many by over 100 percent.[10]

For people with employer-sponsored coverage, costs also continue to increase. For families, premiums from 2009 to 2013 have increased by an average of $2,976.[11]

Promise #4: “[F]or the 85 and 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened. And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”[12]

Reality: Obamacare imposes certain new benefit mandates on those with employer-sponsored coverage—a majority of Americans.

These mandates increase the cost of coverage. In fact, federal regulations written in 2010 assumed “that the increases in insurance benefits will be directly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. These assumptions bias the estimates of premium changes upward.”[13]

But higher premiums not only cost people more money; they have other impacts on coverage as well. For instance, as a response to the direct cost increases associated with Obamacare, UPS dropped coverage for spouses of employees if they are offered coverage through their own employers.[14]

Promise #5: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”[15]

Reality: Obamacare contains 18 separate tax hikes, fees, and penalties, many of which heavily impact the middle class.

Altogether, Obamacare’s taxes and penalties will accumulate over $770 billion in new revenue over a 10-year period.[16] Among the taxes that will hit the middle class are the individual mandate tax, the medical device tax, and new penalties and limits on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts.[17]

Promise #6: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”[18]

Reality: Obamacare’s new spending is unsustainable.

Obamacare was passed into law relying on a wide variety of unrealistic budget projections. A more realistic assessment reveals that it will be a multi-trillion-dollar budget buster. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the cost of Obamacare over the long term if certain cost-containment measures were overridden. Under that alternative scenario, which assumes that “historical trends and policy preferences continue,” the GAO found that Obamacare would increase the primary deficit by 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[19]

Senator Jeff Sessions (R–AL) and the Senate Budget Committee staff, who commissioned the GAO report, translated the 75-year percentage estimate into today’s dollar amount, which would be $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years.[20]

Promise #7: “[W]hatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.”[21]

Reality: Health spending is still rising and is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.8 percent from 2012 to 2022.[22]

While growth in health spending has been slower recently compared to the past, that is largely due to the sluggish economic recovery. Indeed, Obamacare’s new entitlements will help drive greater health spending in 2014 and beyond.[23]

Promise #8: “I will protect Medicare.”[24]

Reality: Obamacare cuts Medicare spending.

Obamacare makes unprecedented and unrealistic payment reductions to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans in order to finance the new spending in the law. The cuts amount to over $700 billion from 2013 to 2022.[25] If Congress allows these draconian reductions to take place, it will significantly impact seniors’ ability to access care.[26]

Promise #9: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American.”[27]

Reality: Millions of Americans will remain uninsured.

Despite spending nearly $1.8 trillion in new spending from 2014 to 2023, the law falls far short of universal coverage. Indeed, Obamacare is projected by the CBO to leave 31 million uninsured after a decade of full implementation.[28]

Promise #10: “So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.”[29]

Reality: Obamacare has not increased insurer competition or consumer choice.

In the vast majority of states, the number of insurers competing in the state’s exchange is actually less than the number of carriers that previously sold individual market policies in the state.[30] And at the local level, for 35 percent of the nation’s counties, exchange enrollees will have a choice of plans from only two insurers—a duopoly. In 17 percent of counties, consumers will have no choice—a monopoly—as only one carrier is offering coverage in the exchange.[31]

—Alyene Senger is a Research Associate in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

 

Report: Obamacare provision will allow ‘forced’ home inspections by gov’t agents

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

Win McNamee/Getty Images

 

 

Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in “home health visits” for those in certain “high-risk” categories.

Those categories include:

• Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the “Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program” allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary.”

“The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks,” he said. “A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to ‘intervention’ in ‘school readiness’ and ‘social-emotional developmental indicators.’ A farm family may be subject to ‘intervention’ in order to ‘prevent child injuries.’ The sky is the limit.”

Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.

“Intervention,” he added, quoting Brown, “may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the “development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum.”

Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.

In 2011, he noted, HHS said $224 million would be allocated to support these home visiting programs.

http://www.examiner.com