Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the tag “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

Obama Administration Hits New Low, Threatens 1st Amendment Rights Of Military Personnel


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://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:Joseph R. Carducci

ChaplainsPraying

The Obama administration has just reached a new low. Sure, we all know that the left is naturally antagonistic towards religion even in the best of times. And certainly now with the government shut down the administration has an excuse to do basically whatever they want…but how does threatening to arrest military chaplains for simply doing what they have promised to do?

You see, in Obama’s eyes, when certain military chaplains try to pray during the government shut down or minister to their flock (even on a volunteer basis), that is an arrestable offense. They are not only preventing the chaplains from doing their job but they are also violating those who are serving as far as their 1st Amendment rights are concerned.

This is the situation: during the government shut down, Obama has announced that all contract military chaplains are prohibited from ministering to their flock. They are not allowed to say Mass, perform any type of religious ceremony (baptism, wedding, funeral, etc…), or really do anything related to their normal duties. There are several problems with this, but the main thing is that the military does not have enough chaplains to serve the needs of their troops without having to reach to the civilian sector and hire contract chaplains.

Another problem, of course, is that the actual members of the military are also, in essence, being prohibited from the free exercise of their religious faith. This is in direct violation to the first Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Interesting, but it just goes to show you what Obama really thinks about religion and the Constitution. Of course, he has a certain amount of freedom in what he chooses to shut down and what is chosen to remain open or operational. Just as an example, consider the fact that a contract chaplain right now could literally be arrested for walking onto a military base and praying, yet the website of Michele Obama called ‘Let’s Move,’ is considered more important than taking care of military people. Simply amazing.

For all practical purposes, Obama has served to literally block all types of religious services and activity on many military bases, especially those on foreign soil. So, all those military men and women who had been planning on having a baptism, a confirmation, or a wedding will likely find those services to be canceled. Not to mention the fact that they will probably be denied the chance to go to mass as well.

I suppose we already knew that Obama would do anything he can to attack our religious freedoms. Now, he is using the government shut down as an excuse…and not even a very good one. This is par for the course from our amazing community organizer in chief. I hope that all this military men and women remember this move and then vote for the appropriate party in November 2014…especially considering that now there are several GOP representatives looking into exactly what can be done to help improve this situation.

What do YOU think? Do our servicemen and women deserve better than this type of treatment at the hands of the Obama Regime? What should be done about it?

 

Obamacare: Highly Compensated Individuals & the Second Amendment


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://freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Sid Wolf

gun

“Prohibition on Discrimination in Favor of Highly Compensated Individuals” is a section found in Obamacare. Within in it is a sub-section protecting Second Amendment gun rights, with respect to wellness and prevention programs. The language appears, on the face, to prohibit the use of any data collection with regard to the ”the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.” However, does this section really provide adequate protection for gun owners, and more specifically our veterans?

The Section reads as follows:

SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals).

(b) RULES AND DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

(1) CERTAIN RULES TO APPLY.—Rules similar to the rules contained in paragraphs (3), (4), and (8) of section 105(h) of such Code shall apply.

(2) HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘highly compensated individual’ has the meaning given such term by section 105(h)(5) of such Code.”.

(e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections

(d) and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:

(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

To imply that the healthcare database would not be used in any database is to ignore history and an earlier Executive Order: a) Action #2 Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system and b) Action #16 Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159 basically requires the Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to request background checks on prospective firearm transferees and that the US Attorney General establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Under this law some military veterans are being denied their right to own a gun ….not for any crimes committed, but because of psychiatric determinations or evaluations based on issues related to PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome).

Here are just a few reasons, under the Brady Law, where an individual can be denied, when undergoing a background check: a) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; b) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; and c) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.

Given the above, one conclusion can be drawn –”It does not prohibit the use of a database to determine who has a psychological ‘disorder’ like ADHD or PTSD. And it does not prohibit the ATF from trolling the database for persons with these disorders (independent of any issue of gun ownership) — and sending their names to the FBI’s database of prohibited persons because of any of the reasons stated above under 18 USC §922 (g). Further, HIPAA would not prohibit this ‘law enforcement function,’ and Obamacare has significantly broaden the list of people whose determination is an ‘official’ determination similar to the VA psychiatrists who have disarmed approximately 150,000 veterans.”

Everyone goes to the doctor for one reason or another, so under this law and the Executive Order issued by this administration, questions about guns in the home will be asked of literally every individual in the nation and not just those with “mental health issues.” Kris Zane rightly asks, “What about post-partum depression or other ‘depressive’ disorders? This and PTSD could be easily—but falsely—’proved’ or be temporary issue. What about a child who tells the doctor that mom and dad have been arguing? Would this be considered a ‘mental health’ issue because at any one time any one of us could be categorized as being ‘depressed going through a difficult time in our lives?’”

What has not been discussed in the media is the reference to Section 105(h) of the IRS code and ramifications for employers as well as employees regarding health insurance and compliance.

There are other sections in Obamacare that reference and require fully-insured plans which lose “grandfathered” status comply with the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

According to a memo from Davis & Harman LLP, titled “New Nondicrimination Requirements for Insured Group Health Plans,” the rules “prohibit health plans from discriminating in favor of “highly compensated individuals.” These rules already apply to self-funded plans, but will now apply to fully-insured plans, which have lost grandfathered status, which went into effect on the first plan year beginning after September 23, 2010.

“The penalty for an employer who sponsors a fully-insured plan which violates these rules is severe,” the memo continues. “They would be liable for an excise tax of up to $100 per day per employee ‘discriminated against.’ Below explains some of the rules and what must be done to make sure their benefits, eligibility, and contribution structure are in compliance.”

Suppose a “highly compensated individual” is promised benefits for life under a self-funded health care plan and he incurs $100,000 of medical costs in connection with an illness. The $100,000 of benefits will be taxable income under Section 105(h). Most lawyers warn organizations that self-insured plans should not create exclusive eligibility rules only for higher-ranking executives in connection with retirements or separation of employment. Under Section 105(h) only highly compensated individuals are subject to the above adverse tax consequences. However, most of these individuals comprise roughly 25% of the workforce, and are usually an employer’s most senior and vital employees.

Section 105(h) defines“Highly compensated individuals (HCI or HCE)” as individuals who are:

  1. one of the 5 highest paid officers,
  2. a shareholder who owns (with the application of section 318) more than 10 percent in value of the stock of the employer, or
  3. an individual who is among the highest paid 25 percent of all employees (other than excludable employees who are not participants).

Benefits Testing: Under the benefits test, all benefits provided to “highly-compensated employees (and their dependents), must be provided for all other participants (and their dependents). In other words, HCEs must not be provided better benefits (or the opportunity to elect better benefits) than NHCEs.”

However, for testing purposes, employers may exclude from testing:

  1. employees who have not completed 3 years of service;
  2. employees who have not attained age 25;
  3. part-time or seasonal employees;
  4. employees not included in the plan who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, if accident and health benefits were the subject of good faith
    bargaining between the employee representatives (UNIONS) and the employer; and
  5. employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d) (2)) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of section 861(a) (3)).

Hopefully, this section protects the rest of us, but I have not been able to get clarification of this since this “entire” section of the Act addresses “highly compensated individuals” and the “exclusion” portion of this section seems to protect “unions” excluding the rest of those individuals that do not fall into the other 2 categories.

I did find this on a BCBS website in South Carolina which relates to what is currently being discussed in the news regarding “grandfathered plans” but this statement is troubling. “Prohibition of Discrimination Based on Lawful Ownership or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition – Plan may not base eligibility, premiums, discounts, rebates or rewards on the lawful use, ownership, or possession of firearms or ammunition, nor may a plan request this information as part of a wellness program or for any use related to the Health Care Reform Act. These prohibitions do not apply to a grandfathered plan.” It’s apparent, the healthcare law is mandating insurance companies drop current healthcare plans, not only to include all the new requirements, but to have everyone bound by this section of the law with the intent of everyone ultimately being included in any database that currently exits under the Brady Act.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamacare-highly-compensated-individuals-second-amendment/#l7DwG2Cjt1yezX8w.99

New ObamaCare Video Slammed by Gay Republican Group


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://newsbusters.org

 

Posted by:Randy Hall

Just when it seemed that proponents of the Affordable Care Act couldn’t sink any lower, they’ve gone ahead and approved an offensive advertisement trying to get gay men to enroll in healthcare exchanges that has managed to get everyone disgusted.


The ad — which features muscular men dancing in colorful underwear and Christmas headgear as they tout the benefits of enrollment in insurance exchanges — was praised by Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey who said he supports “whatever it takes to get people enrolled.”

Participants in the two-minute video produced by the organization known as Out2Enroll sing a parody of the tune “Let It Snow,” which has new lyrics encouraging gays and lesbians to “Get Enrolled”:

Hope you’re stuffed from your Thanksgiving,
Now ’tis the season of giving.
‘Fore the doctor brings a lump of coal,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!
And when it’s time for resolutions,
A health insurance solution,
Don’t get left in the cold,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!
When you finally meet Mr. Right,
Never again will you be alone.
You’ll be glad you went to the site.
Together you’re a happy home.
Pre-existing conditions won’t stop ‘em.
New plans are better; can’t top ‘em.
Whether bronze, silver or gold,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!

It didn’t take long for leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans — self-described as the “only LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) advocacy organization on the ObamaCare Repeal Coalition,”  to issue a statement on Sunday denouncing the video for “exploiting gay stereotypes.”

“This cynical ad betrays the depths ObamaCare advocates will sink to in order to pad their pathetic enrollment numbers,” executive director Gregory Angelo declared. “As a self-proclaimed ‘fierce advocate’ of gay equality, President Obama would do well to distance himself from this nonsense and denounce it immediately.”
Angelo then noted:

This ad is also an example of the left promoting harmful stereotypes that gay men are nothing more than sex-crazed lechers. If anyone on the right made such a comparison, liberals would be apoplectic.
At a time when left-wing propagandists are
decrying Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson for equating homosexuality with promiscuity and deviance, Out2Enroll and others should take a look in the mirror and ask if the truth is that they are the ones responsible for promoting such harmful stereotypes.

Then on Monday morning, MSNBC Live anchor Craig Melvin played a clip of the controversial video and asked for Pallone’s response to it.

“Whatever it takes to get people enrolled,” the New Jersey Democrat said before attacking Chris Christie, the Republican governor of his state, for not using more of the $7.5 million allocated to promoting the ACA and driving up enrollment.
“At this point, whether it’s an ad, whether it’s, you know, TV ads, or newspaper ads, or people going door to door, I just want people to sign up because the more people that sign up, the larger the insurance pool, and the more likely it is that the insurance becomes affordable,” he noted.
“So I’m not going to prejudge what types of ads are being promoted,” Pallone added. “The main thing is to get people signed up.”
As NewsBusters has previously reported, this is far from the first time that advocates of ObamaCare have crossed the line between good and bad taste.
The first instance took place in Colorado during the month of October, when an ad targeting young men promoted “brosurance” because “Keg stands are crazy. Not having health insurance is crazier. Don’t tap into your beer money to cover those medical bills. We got it covered. Now you can, too! Thanks, ObamaCare!”
Just one month later,
an ad focused on young women was hammered for portraying them as “cheap sluts who don’t care about their health or well-being other than getting cheap birth control pills to have sex with strange men.”
And in December, ACA proponents released a display ad containing a
photo of a grown man in children’s pajamas holding a cup of hot chocolate. The text on the ad stated: “Wear pajamas. Drink hot chocolate. Talk about getting health insurance.” Ethan Krupp soon became known as “PajamaBoy”.
Before long, Krupp became the target of jokes from both sides of the political aisle. While some people considered him an “emblem” of people who are not white, others declared him “one of the whitest people on the planet.”
Who knows what kind of misfire the next promotion of ObamaCare will contain? It’s impossible to guess, so check back on this site regularly for coverage of the ACA defenders’ latest stumble. One thing is for certain: You won’t hear much about such ridiculous ads in the self-proclaimed mainstream media.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/12/25/new-obamacare-video-slammed-gay-republican-group-praised-new-jersey-demo#ixzz2ogs1AFNo

 

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

Photo - Image from Marotta's website warning investors to prepare a "bug-out" bag in case of a fiscal collapse.

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 afinancial 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

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

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

December 24, 2013

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

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

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

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

If so why wasn’t his SSN# showing up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New ObamaCare fees coming in 2014


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:S.A. Miller and Geoff Earle

Modal Trigger

New ObamaCare fees coming in 2014

Photo: AP Photo/Susan Walsh

WASHINGTON — Here comes the ObamaCare tax bill.

The cost of President Obama’s massive health-care law will hit Americans in 2014 as new taxes pile up on their insurance premiums and on their income-tax bills.

Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.

But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”

The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.

The new taxes and fees include a 2 percent levy on every health plan, which is expected to net about $8 billion for the government in 2014 and increase to $14.3 billion in 2018.

There’s also a $2 fee per policy that goes into a new medical-research trust fund called the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Insurers pay a 3.5 percent user fee to sell medical plans on the HealthCare.gov Web site.

ObamaCare supporters argue that federal subsidies for many low-income Americans will not only cover the taxes, but pay a big chunk of the premiums.

But ObamaCare taxes don’t stop with health-plan premiums.

Americans also will pay hidden taxes, such as the 2.3 percent medical-device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.

Those with high out-of-pocket medical expenses also will get smaller income-tax deductions.

Americans are currently allowed to deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their annual income. The threshold jumps to 10 percent under ObamaCare, costing taxpayers about $15 billion over 10 years.

Then there’s the new Medicare tax.

Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration touted a surge of more than 2 million visitors Monday at HealthCare.gov, plus about 250,000 calls to ObamaCare call centers.

“Volumes remain high but not equal to [Monday] and we have not had to deploy our queuing system on the site,” said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, referring to a virtual waiting room that is activated when the site is overloaded.

“We are taking thousands of calls at our call centers, which remain open until midnight, and we are seeing thousands of visitors complete enrollment online,” she said.

It wasn’t smooth sailing for everyone on the troubled site.

Software techie Jeff Karaaro tweeted in frustration: “Got three different codes trying to submit plan choices. No [one] can tell me what they mean. I nor call center can complete my application due to error.”

http://nypost.com

 

Obama Must Be Forced to Resign


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:Alan Caruba

Author

A December 17 Reuters article was titled, “Obama’s Current Approval Rating Is The Ugliest Since Nixon.”

President Barack Obama is ending his fifth year in office with the lowest approval ratings at this point in the presidency since President Richard Nixon, according to a new Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday.”

Nixon was forced to resign on April 22, 1974, after two long years that followed the revelations about Watergate, a break-in of the Democratic Party offices in Washington, DC. The backlash against the horrors of ObamaCare, concerns about the “deal” with Iran, and a succession of scandals from Fast and Furious to Benghazi, have raised fear and anger over his judgment, competence, and behavior in office.

Having lived through the years that led to Nixon’s resignation, I am seeing the same national resistance that Obama’s five years in office have led to. Nixon was never a “popular” President, widely seen as “Tricky Dick”, but, like Obama, he was twice elected to the office. His Vice President, Gerald Ford, who assumed the presidency, was defeated by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and, four years later, an unhappy electorate defeated Carter and elected Ronald Reagan who would serve two terms. Even the popular Bill Clinton faced impeachment.

Not since the days of the Great Depression in the 1930s have Americans endured an economy that has failed to overcome slow growth despite Obama’s full first term in office and another year in his second term.

Ignoring the central role of a free market prolongs bad economic conditions and high taxation to maintain an ever-expanding central government led to big problems for European nations and promises the same—or worse—for the U.S.
When you add in the increased debt imposed in Obama’s first term you are looking at the road to ruin.
Blaming “millionaires and billionaires” or “income inequality” is the very essence of communism. It is a rejection of our capitalistic economic system.

Financial ruin for America is embedded in its huge debt, its deficits, and its multi-trillions of dollars in unfunded debt that already insolvent Social Security and Medicare programs represent. And Medicare was looted to fund ObamaCare!

The destruction of our healthcare system, one sixth of the nation’s economy, is widely regarded as a disaster and it bears the President’s name. Passed late at night prior to Christmas in 2009 and signed into law by Barack Obama, ObamaCare is distinguished by the lies the President told all Americans about their right to keep their healthcare insurance plans, retain their personal physicians, and see their costs reduced. It has done the opposite and it is impossible to believe the President did not know this would occur.

The nation has reached a point when the President must be told to resign.

Whether a Congress, also held in extraordinary low esteem, can or will do this is unknown. While I have said in the past that Obama cannot be removed by impeachment, I now believe that if the House would initiate impeachment proceedings that in itself would focus public attention, for example, on the President’s excessive use of executive orders to by-pass Congress and his unconstitutional altering—tweaking—of the ObamaCare law.
His first term was filled with scandals that included using the IRS for political gain. His role in dragging down the nation’s international position as an exemplar and protector of freedom has made the world less safe. These and other issues need a review and discussion that would not occur in the mainstream press in any other way.

This isn’t about a President who authorized a break-in. This is about a President who is a current and future threat to the Constitution, the nation’s military strength, and the restoration of its economy.

This is about a President who can use existing laws to declare martial law based on a manufactured crisis. Existing law would permit him to seize control of all aspects of life in America.

The nation’s mainstream print and broadcast media is showing signs of disillusionment, but not enough to abandon a President they have supported with deliberately biased reporting.

Complicating a demand for his resignation is a divided Republican Party whose elites have rejected the Tea Party movement that has already elected a number of members to Congress. Many find little to differentiate the GOP from the Democratic Party, but there are differences and the House of Representatives is proof of that.

Many Americans sense that the nation is at a very dangerous point.

Dramatic action is needed. A demand for Obama’s resignation via petitions and other measures is needed to save America from the worst President ever elected to that office.

 

 

The 30 Most Obnoxious Quotes Of 2013


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;

 2Conservatives 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

30) Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a Belieber.’ Justin Bieber after a visit to Anne Frank’s house.

29) Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked — that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws. Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation. — Sheila Jackson Lee

28) Here’s the reality. The image of a white Jesus has been used to justify enslavement, conquest, colonialism, the genocide of indigenous peoples. There are literally millions of human beings whose lives have been snuffed out by people who conquered under the banner of a white god. — Tim Wise

27) I’ve gotta tell you, man, I’m starting to think these tea party activists are freaking retarded. — Ryan Ellis, The Tax Policy Director for Americans for Tax Reform

26) The political disfunction that has brought about the shutdown and now threatens default, isn’t so much gridlock. It is exposing the fatal flaw in our Constitution and highly distinct system of government. In other words, it’s the Constitution’s fault. Something truly catastrophic was bound to happen sooner or later. Chris Hayes

25) You know, talk about something else that’s falling from the sky [besides snow], and that is an asteroid. What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of perhaps global warming, or is this just some meteoric occasion? — Deborah Feyerick

24) Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed. Barack Obama lies about his “If you like your plan, you can keep it” lie.

23) I am just here to support the President of the United States. President of the United States is our boss, but he is also… you know, the President and the First Lady are kinda like the Mom and the Dad of the country. And when your Dad says something you listen, and when you don’t it will usually bite you on the ass later on. So, I’m here to support the President. — Chris Rock

22) When you look at Hitler and those thugs, you can put Walmart right next to them. — Dick Gregory

21) Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy. — Barack Obama explains to poor Africans why they need to remain poor

20) Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men….And the best place to start is with a carbon tax. Thomas Friedman

19) I also saw, so the Red Sox won the World Series, congratulations Red Sox. So the parade, they go to the place where the marathon bombing took place, they put the World Series statue there and they sing ‘God Bless America’ and they say ‘Boston strong’ and they chant ‘U-S-A,’ you know. It was again, a bad day, three people died, that’s terrible. More were maimed, that’s horrible, but unfortunately that happens every day, in car accidents and everything else. I mean, your city was not leveled by Godzilla.  Bill Maher

18) Well, you’ve touched on it to a degree. (Obama) made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmas time, but – the next messiah. Barbara Walters

17) First of all, I want to disagree with those who say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem. And when they talk about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation are broke. We can’t afford these things any longer. We’re too broke to invest in education and housing and things like that. Well look at it this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are now the richest nation in the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem? No. — Tom Harkin

16) The insistence (that Santa Claus) not black and can’t be black strikes me as an attempt to perpetuate white supremacy and to posit that whiteness is somehow normal and central while blackness is other or different. — Touré

15) For someone who was responsible for, again, nobody knows, but a certain amount of death of innocent people as John McCain was, the time spent in a North Vietnamese prison where he claims to have been tortured was probably time spent that a Catholic priest, for example, would find completely understandable. It’s called doing penance, John. You don’t bomb and kill people for no reason, even when corporate America or your daddy, who was the supreme commander of Southeast Asian forces, South Pacific forces, orders you to do it. You can’t just take orders, we decided that at Nuremberg. So, if you suffered, I am sorry for your suffering, I truly am, in and of itself, but John-John-John, did you think about the suffering of the people you bombed and strafed? They were civilians, you know. — Mike Malloy

14) I’m putting my life at risk, literally! And if I slipped… You never know. And I think about it. I think about my family and I’m like, wow, this is like being a police officer or something, in war or something.  Kanye West

13) There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American. There’s no question about that and it’s the kind of thing nobody ever says but everybody’s thinking it. Oprah Winfrey

12) Our view of the law is that it — if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation. Nancy Pelosi

11) Republicans are using [the IRS scandal] as their latest weapon in the war against the black man in the White House. IRS” is the new ‘N****r.’” — Martin Bashir

10) Everyone in the world is impacted by the United States’ Big Brother attitude toward the world. We need countries to say no to the United States. The United States is the dominant power in the universe, with its eavesdropping abilities, cyber abilities. And the world is in danger with our tyranny. Oliver Stone

9) One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years….In 1756, he records that ‘a slave named Darby catched eating canes; had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.’ This became known as ‘Darby’s Dose,’ a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of the slave owners’ savagery and inhumanity….When Mrs. Palin invoked slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, then she would be the outstanding candidate.  Martin Bashir explains why Sarah Palin should have someone crap in her mouth

8) “If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?,” Bash asked.

“Why would we want to do that?”  Harry Reid

7) Go to dictionary,& look up
The “C”Word,….next 2 the definition…you’ll see a Pic of
Sarah PALIN !
NO…WAIT …SHES UNDER DUMB C WORD.
 Cher

6) Obama’s not embarrassing. The country is embarrassing. — Hollywood producer and Obama donor Harvey Weinstein

5) We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Melissa Harris-Perry

4) May your children all die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases. Allan Brauer, the communications chair of the Democratic Party of Sacramento County to Ted Cruz staffer Amanda Carpenter

3) There are some gender inequities on college campuses… that’s why we have call boxes, that’s why we have safe zones, that’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, then you pop out that gun and you pop, pop around at somebody. Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar advocates disarming potential rape victims so they won’t accidentally shoot anyone

2) This b@stard is just sick! Pat, go home – go – go to Jesus! PLEASE Pat! Go to your final reward! He’s waiting for you! Jesus and God and all the angels Pat! You tease you! Oh you dirty rotten tease you! You know Jesus wants you to come home and – and enter the bosom of the Lord! But you won’t go! Pat please! Please! They’re waiting for you!

…Pat Robertson, one of the worst Christ hustlers in the history of this silly, stupid, destructive religion! Pat, go home! God wants you. God needs you. Please, Pat! Please, Pat, go home! — Mike Malloy

1) We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president’s agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.

Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.

To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”

Except it won’t be a boot. It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good. — Marshall University Journalism Professor, Christopher Swindell

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

Obamacare allows forced government home inspections

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

 

HENRY WAXMAN LEADS NEWEST ATTACK ON GUNS


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

 

Plan would ban ‘virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon

A few months back, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama had Democrats bring into Congress a long list of new gun laws, restrictions and regulations, only to see them slapped down.

You didn’t think they were done with their gun-control plan, did you?

The newest move comes from Rep. Henry Waxman and several others who have introduced H.R. 2910, the “Gun Violence Prevention and Reduction Act of 2013.”

It is getting attention among bloggers who monitor gun rules already, because of what they fear is going to be happening with it.

At Freedom Outpost,Tim Brown writes that the plan “would ban the sale and possession of 80 percent AR-15 receivers.”

“However, the way the legislation reads, it actually bans much more than receivers. It appears to include virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon.”

He wrote that the ban is a little deceptive, because the part that is referenced “is one that is not considered a firearm because it still requires some basic machine work before it is ready to be used in building a firearm.”

He said the possibility with an 80 percent completed lower version, versus a finished product, is that the finished product is required to have a serial number.

“There is no need for the gun to have a serial number or be registered as long as it remains in your possession for personal use,” he notes.

But he notes instead of plugging a “hole in the law,” Waxman aims for much more.

Specifically, the proposal makes it “unlawful” for any person “to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, or import into the United for sale, to a consumer – an assault weapon parts kit.”

That includes “any part or combination of parts not designed and intended for repair or replacement but designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

“Basically, this ends up targeting any rifle part that can be used to build a firearm,” he noted. “In theory, any parts on a firearm are essentially covered with this legislation.”

He noted it’s now in committee, with only Democrat sponsors.

The bill itself proposes that it is “to protect American children and their families from the epidemic of gun violence by banning access to certain weapons…”

In a recent commentary from WND CEO Joseph Farah, he cited a video that reveals Holder’s own plans for weapons in America:

And it recently was discovered that Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates to use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.”

The manual offers a step-by-step guide on how to stir up sympathy for victims, arrest the “moral authority” from opposing groups like the National Rifle Association and keep the debate emotional instead of allowing facts to interfere.

“Essentially it’s a how-to book on inciting a moral panic,” comments James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.

The guidebook, discovered by the Second Amendment Foundation and reported by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner, was prepared by four strategists including Al Quinlan of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which touts it is “committed to progressive goals,” and includes among its clients the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, among dozens of other left-leaning organizations.

Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Coalition, warns gun-control campaigns like this specifically direct advocates to shy away from facts because they’re based on trying to fool the public.

“That gun-control playbook is full of lies,” Knox told WND, “with the biggest one being in the opening statement that they have the facts and logic on their side, but that we use emotion and money to advance our cause.

“The opposite is true and demonstrated by the suggestions in the book,” he continued. “They depend on emotion and fear, because reality does not support their position. Gun control doesn’t work. It never has. If it did, there would be ample evidence, but the only evidence they have is so weak and suspect, even anti-gun panels for the Centers for Disease Control and the Science Foundation couldn’t find any strong evidence of gun-control efficacy.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/henry-waxman-leads-newest-attack-on-guns/#B84mahBZ9RBZETI5.99

 

Issa to Sebelius on Healthcare.gov Probe: Failing to Turn Over Info is Criminal Obstruction of Justice


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://townhall.com

 

Posted by:Katie Pavlich

Katie Pavlich


In a letter sent late Wednesday, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa reminded Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that obstructing a congressional investigation is a crime.

Issa’s Committee has been looking into the details of how Obamacare was implemented, along with the major problems with Healthcare.gov and has requested a number of documents from HHS, none of which he’s received. The documents requested pertain to companies hired by HHS to build and operate Healthcare.gov.

“The Department [HHS] subsequently instructed those companies not to comply with the Committee’s request. The Department’s hostility toward questions from Congress and the media about the implementation of Obamcare is well known. The Department’s most recent effort to stonewall, however, has morphed from mere obstinacy into criminal obstruction of a congressional investigation,” Issa wrote.

The letter details a contract between HHS and Creative Computing Solutions, Inc. (CCSI) forcing the company to get approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services before cooperating with Congress, making it nearly impossible for lawmakers to get documents from the company directly. CCSI has been citing the contract as the reason why they cannot turn over requested documents to Congress. In the letter, Issa indicated this refusal by CCSI under the thumb of HHS could be criminal obstruction of a congressional investigation.

“The Departmen’t instruction not to cooperate with congressional investigations relies on language in the contract with CCSI which precludes contractors from sharing certain data with third parties. Moreover, the Department explicitly forbids the release of documents without authorization from CMS. That argument — that the language in the contract between the Department and a private company supersedes Congress’ constitutional prerogative to conduct oversight — is without merit,” Issa wrote. “In fact, it strains credulity to such an extent that it creates the appearance that the Department is using the threat of litigation to deter private companies from cooperating with Congress. The Department’s attempt to threaten CCSI for the purpose of deterring the company from providing documents to Congress places the officials responsible for drafting and sending the letter on the wrong side of federal statues that prohibit obstruction of a congressional investigation. Obstructing a Congressional investigation is a crime.”

Issa instructed Sebelius to inform HHS officials to immediately stop directing employees and contractors not to turn over Healthcare.gov documents to Congress. He also reminded Sebelius that a subpoena was issued to her on October 30, 2013 and requires a response.

“Private citizens and companies cannot contract away their duty to comply with a congressional request for documents,” Issa said. “Furthermore, the Department’s instruction to CCSI and other contractors not to respond to congressional document requests runs afoul of a federal statute that prohibits interfering with an employees’ right to furnish information to Congress. Under that statute, any effort to enforce a contract that prevents a federal employee — or in this case, a contractor — from communicating with Congress is unlawful.”

Thursday, the Oversight Committee will hold a hearing about Obamacare’s impact on premiums and provider networks as millions continue to see skyrocketing insurance rates, loss of health insurance and a loss of preferred doctors.

 

Cheney: Medical Device Tax ‘One of the Dumbest Ideas’ in Obamacare


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://pjmedia.com

 

Posted by:NICHOLAS BALLASY

I can’t imagine anything worse — well, I’m sure I can, but I think it’s just an example of how ill-conceived parts of this program are.”

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney called the medical device tax under Obamacare “one of the dumbest ideas” he’s ever heard.

“I worry very much about the device tax,” Cheney said at the National Press Club on Tuesday night.

“This is a new tax, a new tax that’s going to be imposed on medical devices. I think that’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve heard of and I feel very strongly about it. I’m literally walking around proof about how great, of how innovative our healthcare system has been. I can’t imagine anything worse — well, I’m sure I can, but I think it’s just an example of how ill-conceived parts of this program are.”

The 2.3 percent tax took effect at the beginning of 2013 and is expected to raise approximately $29 billion over the next 10 years as a way to pay for the healthcare law.

A 2011 study funded by AdvaMed, an industry trade association, estimated that the medical device industry could lose 43,000 U.S. jobs due to the tax, the Fiscal Times reported. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle whose districts are particularly affected have proposed repeal of the tax.

Cheney cited the creation of stents to support his position on the medical device tax. Julio Palmaz invented the balloon expandable stent with the help of $250,000 from Phil Romano, founder of Fuddruckers and Macaroni Grill. The idea was eventually patented and bought by Johnson & Johnson.

“The initiative and incentive for them to do that and make it happen didn’t come from the government; it was something they put together themselves and now under Obamacare we’re going to tax makers of the devices,” Cheney said.

Cheney also said he was uninsured at one time but for most of his life he was covered by a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan while in public service.

“There was a time in my life when I was about 23, shortly before I got married, when I got sick, hospitalized and had no health insurance. I spent our honeymoon money on medical bills,” he said.

Cheney added that the Blue Cross Blue Shield plan “basically financed” all of his healthcare; when he left the White House, he went on Medicare.

Cheney’s comments were made during a discussion about the book he co-authored with his cardiologist Dr. Jonathan Reiner, called Heart: An American Medical Odyssey.

During the book discussion, Cheney told the audience that he wrote a letter of resignation addressed to the secretary of State in case he had a life-threatening heart attack. Cheney said he gave it to his chief legal counsel, David Spears Addington, since there was no legal way under the Constitution to remove an incapacitated vice president.

“If the need ever arose, if I ever reached a point where I was no longer able to function as the vice president, then I wanted him to present that to the president,” Cheney said, adding that Addington and Bush were the other two who knew of the letter.

Cheney noted that Addington did not keep the letter in the office since he was worried something could happen to it so he kept it at home. Cheney said Addington’s house caught fire and after his family was safe, Addington ran back in to get the letter.

Cheney was also asked if he believes he would have received a heart if he were not a former vice president.

“I went through the process that everybody else has to go through,” he said. “The normal waiting time is 10 to 12 months. I waited 20 months.”

Dr. Reiner said “there’s no way to game the system” and Cheney “absolutely” would have received a heart regardless of his VIP status.

Moderator Barbara Cochran, president of the National Press Club’s Journalism Institute, asked Cheney about his daughter Mary’s wife publicly criticizing his daughter Liz, who is running for Senate, over the issue of same-sex marriage.

“We were surprised when there was an attack launched against Liz on Facebook and wished it hadn’t happened,” Cheney said.

“It’s always been dealt with within the context of the family, and, frankly, that’s our preference.”

Cochran started to ask a follow-up question and Cheney shot back, saying, “I’ve gone as far as I’m going to go on the subject; don’t waste your time.”

Liz Cheney is running against incumbent Wyoming GOP Sen. Mike Enzi. She recently expressed support for traditional marriage on Fox News; in response, her sister Mary and her wife, Heather Poe, criticized her on Facebook.

“Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 — she didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us,” Poe wrote on November 17. “To have her now say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.”

Mary Cheney said, “Liz – this isn’t just an issue on which we disagree – you’re just wrong – and on the wrong side of history.”

Nicholas Ballasy is a video journalist based in Washington, D.C. His interviews with prominent politicians and celebrities have been featured by media outlets including Fox News, NBC News, ABC News, Access Hollywood, Inside Edition, the Washington Post. Follow his work at http://www.nickballasy.com.

 

Young people have bailed on Obama. Why that matters a lot.


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.washingtonpost.com

 

Posted by:Sean Sullivan and Scott Clement 

One of President Obama’s chief political assets has been his ability to excite young people like almost no politician in history. But the days of America‘s youth fawning over the president are over.

(Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

(Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

A new Harvard University Institute of Politics poll released Wednesday confirms what other surveys have shown in recent months: Millennials have soured on Obama so much this year that their opinion of him largely mirrors the American public’s.

Even though Obama does not ever have to face another election, he should be worried about the findings for a couple of reasons, which we will dive into momentarily.

First, let’s take a look at what the data show.

Only 41 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds say they approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the Harvard IOP poll, down 11 percentage points from April. Fifty-four percent say they disapprove. It’s Obama’s worst showing in the survey since becoming president. What’s more, a majority of 18-to-24-year-olds say they would recall (!) the president if given a chance.

Other surveys have also shown steep declines in support for the president among young Americans. Obama’s approval rating among 18-to-29-year-olds has dropped 23 points from the beginning of the year in Washington Post-ABC News polling, from 66 to 43 percent.Gallup’s polling has shown a nearly identical decline.

What it means is that young people now view the president in largely the same light as the larger pool of all adults. Just take a look at this chart from Harvard IOP which maps Obama’s approval rating among the young in their poll against his numbers among all adults according to Gallup.

obamaapproval2

The next logical question is why this matters for Obama’s agenda. After all, he’s run his last race.

The biggest issue on Obama’s plate right now is the implementation of this health-care law, which has gotten off to a very rocky start. The law’s success or failure will pivot heavily on young people. The Obama administration needs some 40 percent of those who sign up for new plans via the exchanges to be under 35, in order to keep premiums low and make the Affordable Care Act work as designed.

The thing is, only 29 percent of uninsured 18-to-29-year olds say they will definitely (13 percent) or likely (16 percent) enroll in new plans via the exchanges, the Harvard IOP poll shows.

Overall, the young simply don’t like what they see when it comes to Obamacare. Young people disapprove of the law, believe it will make them pay more for health care and on balance see it making their quality of care worse rather than better.

aca_obamacare

One important thing worth noting: Young people have turned against Obama before and he survived. He went through it in 2011 and 2012, as the following chart shows. Despite that, Obama still carried a whopping 60 percent of the youth vote in 2012, not that far of his 66 percent clip in 2008.

chart689

So if young voters soured on Obama during his first term but largely came home and backed him in 2012, what is the impact of his latest downturn in popularity? One consequence is disengagement. Three-quarters of younger Americans say they don’t consider themselves politically engaged and only 34 percent say they’ll “definitely” vote in the 2014 midterm elections, the Harvard IOP poll shows. These are voters Democrats need to win key Senate and House seats, so their lagging participation could exact a toll.

To be clear, young voters continue to side with Democrats more than Republicans, and it’s likely Democrats will continue to hold a significant advantage among younger voters in presidential contests where they are motivated to vote by the campaign.

But Obama’s concern is no longer the presidential election. It’s what happens with his health-care law and what happens at the ballot box in 2014. Since these are Obama’s proprieties, the extent to which his support among the young has eroded is nothing but bad news for him.

 

Millennials Abandon Obama and Obamacare


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

http://www.nationaljournal.com

 

Posted by:Ron Fournier

Ron Fournier

A majority of America’s youngest adults would vote to recall the president.

(JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature health care law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25–the youngest millennials–would favor throwing Obama out of office.

The survey, part of a unique 13-year study of the attitudes of young adults, finds that America’s rising generation is worried about its future, disillusioned with the U.S. political system, strongly opposed to the government’s domestic surveillance apparatus, and drifting away from both major parties. “Young Americans hold the president, Congress and the federal government in less esteem almost by the day, and the level of engagement they are having in politics are also on the decline,” reads the IOP’s analysis of its poll. “Millennials are losing touch with government and its programs because they believe government is losing touch with them.”

The results blow a gaping hole in the belief among many Democrats that Obama’s two elections signaled a durable grip on the youth vote.

Indeed, millennials are not so hot on their president.

Obama’s approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.

When asked if they would want to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of millennials said they would oust their member of Congress; 52 percent replied “all members of Congress” should go; and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, at 52 percent.

While there is no provision for a public recall of U.S. presidents, the poll question revealed just how far Obama has fallen in the eyes of young Americans.

IOP director Trey Grayson called the results a “sea change” attributable to the generation’s outsized and unmet expectations for Obama, as well as their concerns about the economy, Obamacare and government surveillance.

The survey of 2,089 young adults, conducted Oct. 30 through Nov. 11, spells trouble for the Affordable Care Act. The fragile economics underpinning the law hinge on the willingness of healthy, young Americans to forgo penalties and buy health insurance.

According to the poll, 57 percent of millennials disapprove of Obamacare, with 40 percent saying it will worsen their quality of care and a majority believing it will drive up costs. Only 18 percent say Obamacare will improve their care. Among 18-to-29-year-olds currently without health insurance, less than one-third say they’re likely to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges.

More than two-thirds of millennials said they heard about the ACA through the media. That’s a bad omen for Obamacare, given the intensive coverage of the law’s botched rollout. Just one of every four young Americans said they discussed the law with a friend or through social media. Harvard’s John Della Volpe, who conducted the poll, said the president has done a poor job explaining the ACA to young Americans.

Infographic

Republican and Democratic leaders should find little solace in the results. The survey said that 33 percent of young Americans consider themselves Democrats and 24 percent identify with the GOP. The largest and growing segment is among independents, 41 percent of the total.

Democrats’ advantage among young voters is fading. Among the oldest millennials (ages 25 to 29), Democrats hold a 16-point lead over the GOP: 38 percent say they’re Democrats, and 22 percent call themselves Republicans. Among the youngest of this rising generation (ages 18 to 24), the gap is just 6 points, 31 percent for Democrats and 25 percent for Republicans.

Approval ratings of Congress have declined steeply in the past few years, with congressional Democrats now at 35 percent and congressional Republicans at just 19 percent.

Young blacks say they are much less likely to vote in the 2014 midterm election than they were in November 2009, signaling a worrisome level of engagement among a key Democratic constituency.

In addition to health care, domestic spying is an issue that puts Obama on the wrong side of the rising generation. While split on whether Edward Snowden is a “patriot” or a “traitor” for revealing Obama’s surveillance programs, strong majorities of 18-to-29-year-olds oppose the government collecting information from social networks, Web-browsing histories, email, GPS locations, telephone calls, and text messages. 

College loans are a big issue with young Americans, too. Nearly six of 10 called student debt a major problem, and another 22 percent called it a minor one. Seventy percent said their financial situation played into their decision whether to attend college.

Respondents were given a list of options for shrinking the nation’s debt. Majorities favored suggestions to tax the rich, cut foreign economic aid in half, slash the nuclear-warhead arsenal, and reduce food stamps.

The results conform with a story I did this summer with the help of the IOP (“The Outsiders: How Can Millennials Change Washington If They Hate It?”), arguing that while Millennials are deeply committed to public service they don’t see government as an efficient way to improve their lives or their communities.

The IOP report issued today said: “This is not to say that young Americans are rejecting politics, the role of government and the promise of America more generally. They are sending a message to those in power that for them to re-engage in government and politics, the political process must be open, collaborative and have the opportunity for impact — and not one that simply perpetuates well-worn single issue agendas.”

The survey was conducted online. The National Journal generally refrains from covering online-only polls but has made past exceptions. In this case, Harvard’s IOP survey uniquely focuses on millennials with accumulated data set and a credible polling operation.

Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government


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.mediaite.com

 

Posted by:Noah Rothman

During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.

On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”

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

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

So You’re Offended, Are You?


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:Jim Yardley 

Author

Every day we see news stories in the main stream media reporting that activist atheists and non-religious groups, such as those involved in the LGBT community, attack any demonstration of religiosity.  Catholic hospitals, schools or charitable organizations, for example, who employ anyone who is not a nun, priest or brother, are being forced to ignore their own religious doctrines and supply contraceptives and abortifacients as part of the health insurance that they offer to their lay employees under the mandates of ObamaCare.

 

Christmas particularly seems to drive atheists wild for some reason.  The idea that a community wants to put up a Christmas tree in a public space (even when no public funds are involved) seems to cause the vapors among those groups.  And their passive-aggressive posture of being “offended” by any demonstration of Christmas, or singing Christmas carols in a school that have any connection to the idea that Christmas is actually connected to, you know, the birth of Jesus, will cause them to have a figurative brain hemorrhage.

This particular and peculiar obsession with Christmas makes one wonder why they never seem to sue to get the Saint Patrick’s Day parade shut down.  It is all about a saint, after all.

There seems to be ongoing and vicious assaults on Judeo-Christian beliefs in this country, and directed against Christians even more than Jews.  Many Christians are outraged at this assault in direct contravention of the First Amendment’s protections of religious freedom, of course when Christians find this to be offensive, they are simply viewed as being borderline retarded, and so they are ignored and marginalized.

Even non-religious organizations are bowing before the non-God of atheistic conformity, so we have stores referring to “holiday trees”, the “holiday season” or printing “holiday greeting cards.”

So what should Christians do?

My (sarcastic) answer to them would be very simple.  Offer to cooperate with the posturing fools who want to kill Christmas.  Let’s suggest to the atheists and Democrats (or is that redundant?) that they eliminate Christianity and Judaism altogether.  Wouldn’t that be great!  Think of all the benefits that would accrue to the country if actually did eliminate Christianity and Judaism along with their antiquated and obviously wrong-headed and ignorant ideas that form the basis of Judeo-Christian morality. 

Since Judeo-Christian morality is the basis for all law and governmental intrusion to moderate the activities of human beings in Western Civilization, what might happen?  Well, just hypothetically speaking of course, here are a couple of possibilities:

  1. The crime statistics would drop to nearly zero.  After all, 99.9% of all the laws in this country are based on the biblical Ten Commandments.  Get rid of that relic of a time long past and VOILA!  No crime, therefore no crime statistics.  It would be every man for himself in the realm of jurisprudence and police activity.
  2. Once crime is eliminated, think of the vast reductions in government spending that would ensue.  Welfare?  Gone.  It’s based on the religious concepts of three major religions (Judaism, Christianity as well as Islam) that preach that people should act charitably toward the less fortunate.  Get rid of religion, then charity, in all its governmentally coerced forms such as welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, unemployment insurance, workers comp insurance, food stamps and all their supporting bureaucracy would vanish.  Cool, right?  We could save hundreds of billions, perhaps even a trillion or so, each and every year and wipe out our entire national debt in less than ten years.
  3. Gun and ammunition manufacturers would find their revenue stream increasing rapidly, since without those pesky, antiquated laws based on the so-called Ten Commandments, there would no longer be any restraints on anyone’s behavior.  So you’re daughter gets raped, what are you going to do?  Call a cop?  It’s not a crime anymore, right?  So get your gun, and start killing everyone that remotely resembles your daughter’s rapist.  Murder isn’t a crime either.  Well, maybe it would be classed as “Felony Littering”, although I don’t recall one of those Ten Commandments saying, “Thou shalt not litter.”  It follows Point #1 above:  You’re on your own.
  4. Divorce attorneys might be upset when the divorce laws become inoperable.  That whole “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife” business would be a thing of the past, wouldn’t it?  And while you might not have to worry about alimony anymore, you might want to review Point #3 about murder not being a crime either.  Just sayin’.
  5. And changes need not be limited to domestic affairs.  Think how different foreign relations would be if we could ignore the Judeo-Christian tradition.  For instance we could eliminate all that nonsense about the Geneva Convention, and torturing enemy combatants.  The concept of innocent civilians would be gone, so the rules of engagement for our military would be soooo much simpler.  If it moves, kill it!

I feel sure that all the atheists and other anti-Christian, anti-Jewish rabble rousers would just love those kinds of changes, right?  And if they don’t, what rationalization could they offer to replace laws based on the Ten Commandments?  No matter how they twist and turn, the simple truth is that the Ten Commandments offer the same thing that our Constitution offers – a simple, understandable guide for how to conduct the affairs of human beings to inflict the least suffering on one’s self or on others. 

So if these individuals who object to the observance of these simple rules want them eradicated because, to use the words of Karl Marx, “religion is the opiate of the masses”, and want to lead all of us away from the basis for all law that controls our behavior, how should Christians and Jews respond?  When one of these rabid atheists claim that they are “Offended by (fill in the blank however you prefer)”, there can be only one rational answer:

So what? Who cares if you’re offended?

No matter what a person or group is offended by, I see nothing in the Constitution that equates having hurt feelings with, say, unreasonable search and seizure.  Even the Bible doesn’t say “Thou shalt not hurt anyone’s feelings”. So long as whatever is used to “fill in the blank” does not actually cause physical harm to an individual or restrict in any way their constitutionally enumerated and protected rights, the fact that they are offended is utterly irrelevant.  Saying that they’re offended is just one of those passive-aggressive ploys that the left uses to get everyone else to change their behavior to avoid “friction” or “bad feelings” and to enhance “cooperation” (meaning, simply, do it my way).  How about we simply ignore the fact that their feelings are hurt?  If they can’t handle that, well, ObamaCare offers psychiatric care, doesn’t it? 

There, that should make them happy.

Obama to Force Military Families Away From Tricare …By Tripling Their Fees.


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: conservativeinfidel.com

 

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin

 

Military-families-181x300

via ijreview

President Barack Obama has said on multiple occasions that he stands by the troops, and lauds their selflessness in fighting the Iraq war and the conflict in Afghanistan. During a time when our bravest in uniform have been in a state of war for more than a decade, one would think that our fearless leaders should reward their efforts by making life a bit easier at home.

Instead, Obama simply insists on tripling their fees on the military health insuranceprogram called Tricare.

What is the administration’s reasoning on this? Well, they actually admit that Obama would rather the troops partake in ‘alternatives’ that were established in the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare). In a report from the FreeBeacon.com, Bill Gertz states:

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.”

This is quite a telling move by the Obama administration, due to the transparency in a letter written to congress, as the FreeBeacon.com further reports:

The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.”

So, what are these ‘fee initiatives’? The Bill Gertz goes on to say,

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.”

Essentially, Barack Hussein Obama would rather force military families to partake in Obamacare welfare-backed programs rather than using Tricare, and he had hoped to do this by tripling their premiums in just 5 years.

All the while, the report states that Obama leaves his true friends, the ‘unionized civilian defense workers’, unscathed by tax and premium hikes:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.”

The sad part of this tale is that Barack Obama clearly has no loyalty to his country, his ‘friends’, and most certainly the troops that would carry out his commands without question for the love of their home. It is clearly only profit and power that pulls him out of bed in the morning, and lulls him to sleep at night. How so?

We already know that upon the passage of Obamacare that the market reacted by tanking 1%, while certain public sector insurance companies, hospital firms, and pharmaceutical manufacturers significantly increased in share prices. We already know from leaked Pfizer lobbyist memos that they were going to pledge $80 billion to Obama’s reelection efforts if he were to pass the ACA. So, essentially, the fact that Obama’s action of forcing military families away from Tricare and towards these public sector insurance ‘alternatives’, shows who he really serves. …just a hint, it’s not you or anyone in the military.

That’s correct, he serves the unionized defense contractors (as long as they serve him in return), and he serves public sector companies and Wall Street-owned major medical companies, like Pfizer (also… as long as they serve him in return).

In the closing, Patricia Campion of Yahoo News writes these insightful words:

As commander-in-chief, I want every veteran to know that America will always honor your service and your sacrifice — not just today, but every day,” the president said in November. “And just as you fought for us, we’re going to keep fighting for you — for more jobs, for more security, for the opportunity to keep your families strong and America competitive in the 21st century.”

Of course, he forgot to warn them he was about to kick their existing health care insurance plan so far out of reach that they’d be forced to grab the plan that 53 percent of Americans want repealed for survival.”

Thanks for selling our bravest down the river, Mr. President …you’re a great guy

 

Obama Gets Into it With Louisiana Governor Over Healthcare.gov


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://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:EmilyH

121204_barack_obama_ap_605

POTUS decided to travel to Louisiana Friday and discuss the economy; his goal mainly to divert attention from Healthcare.gov. He began speaking about how he was going to create jobs by fixing roads, but Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal immediately brought focus back to health care.

“We will not allow President Obama to bully Louisiana into accepting an expansion of Obamacare,” Jindal said in a statement, saying the expansion would cost the state too much.

“The dysfunction of the website and the president’s broken promises on being able to keep your health plan are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the problems with this law,” Jindal added.

Obama has repeatedly promised that Americans could keep their health care plans/doctors, which was a fat lie. In his speech, he made promises to fix the failing website. The remainder of his speech focused on urging Congress to focus on infrastructure progress.

“I know if there’s one thing that members of Congress from both parties want, it’s smart infrastructure projects that create good jobs in their districts,” he said.

This just goes to show that POTUS can’t own up to his mistakes, and even when someone like Jindal brings it up, he still waves it away with lies and broken promises. Not surprising of course, but equally maddening.

Nice save Mr. President. But it’s apparent you’re still not listening to us.

 

Obamacare enrollment low; Democrats unhappy


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:AP

 

Posted by:DAVID ESPO

news-national-20131114-US--Health.Overhaul-Problems

In this Nov. 6, 2013, file photo, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathl…

WASHINGTON (AP) — Add simmering Democratic discontent to the problems plaguing “Obamacare,” now that first-month enrollment figures are out.

The White House is rushing to come up with an unspecified fix as early as this week to counter the millions of health coverage cancellations going to consumers, at the same time it promises improvements in a federal website so balky that enrollments totaled fewer than 27,000 in 36 states combined.

The White House also is taking a more open approach to changes in the law itself. “We welcome sincere efforts,” presidential press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday at the White House as Democratic impatience grew over a program likely to be at the center of next year’s midterm elections for control of Congress.

After weeks of highly publicized technical woes, the administration had said in advance the enrollment numbers would fall far short of initial expectations.

They did, easily.

A paltry 26,794 people enrolled for health insurance during the first, flawed month of operations for the federal “Obamacare” website.

Adding in enrollment of more than 79,000 in the 14 states with their own websites, the nationwide number of 106,000 October sign-ups was barely one-fifth of what officials had projected — and a small fraction of the millions who have received private coverage cancellations as a result of the federal law.

The administration said an additional 1 million people have been found eligible to buy coverage in the markets, with about one-third qualifying for tax credits to reduce their premiums. Another 396,000 have been found eligible for Medicaid, which covers low-income people.

Republicans were unmoved.

“Even with the administration’s Enron-like accounting, fewer people have signed up for Obamacare nationwide than the 280,000 who’ve already lost their plan in Kentucky as a result of Obamacare mandates,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said.

Administration officials and senior congressional Democrats expressed confidence in the program’s future. “We expect enrollment will grow substantially throughout the next five months,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is in overall charge.

“Even with the issues we’ve had, the marketplace is working and people are enrolling,” she added.

Despite the expressions, the White House raced to reassure anxious Democrats who are worried about the controversial program, which they voted into existence three years ago over Republican opposition as strong now as it was then.

Senate Democrats arranged a closed-door meeting for midday Thursday in the Capitol with White House officials, who held a similar session Wednesday with the House rank and file.

So far, five Senate Democrats are on record in support of legislation by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., to make sure everyone can keep their present coverage if they want to. The bill would require insurance companies to continue offering existing policies, even if they fall short of minimum coverage requirements in the law.

The measure has little apparent chance at passage, given that it imposes a new mandate on the insurance industry that Republicans will be reluctant to accept.

At the same time, a vote would at least permit Democrats to say they have voted to repair some of the problems associated with the Affordable Care Act, as many appear eager to do.

In a statement, Landrieu said Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas were now supporting the legislation, as is Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. All but Feinstein are on the ballot next year.

Across the Capitol, majority Republicans in the House set a vote for Friday on legislation to permit insurance companies to continue selling existing policies that have been ordered scrapped because they fall short of coverage standards in the law.

While House passage of the measure is assured, each Democrat will be forced to cast a vote on the future of a program that Republicans have vowed to place at the center of next year’s campaign.

Democratic Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, who voted for the initial Obama health care bill, said Thursday that members of his caucus want an opportunity to go on the record in support of allowing people to keep the insurance they had.

Doyle told MSNBC in an interview that at a White House meeting Wednesday, House Democrats told Obama about “the frustration level that many of us have” with the health care roll-out.

Doyle said Democrats warned Obama that “if you don’t give us something by Friday” to fix the insurance cancellation problem, then many Democrats are likely to vote for the pending House bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, which would accomplish that goal.

The promise of keeping coverage was Obama’s oft-stated pledge when the legislation was under consideration, a calling card since shredded by the millions of cancellations mailed out by insurers.

Obama apologized last week for the broken promise, but aides said at the time the White House was only considering administration changes, rather than new legislation.

Yak Squeeze from obama and his minions!

———

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Julie Pace contributed to this report.

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

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

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

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

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

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

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

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

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

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

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

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

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

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

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

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing | Sign up for newsletter to receive notifications | Visit us at http://thegovernmentrag.com

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: