Tuesday, May 21, 2013

We won't forget...Bring Bowe home NOW!!!


Another Obamacare Lie 
Any policy in place on March 23, 2010, the day health reform was enacted, falls under the grandfather exemption. As the Obama administration put it, if you like your plan, your doctor or both, you can keep them. Last year some 60 percent of employers, large and small, offered at least one grandfathered plan during open enrollment, according to the Kaiser survey. New employees can also join a grandfathered plan so long as the company has maintained consecutive enrollment in it.

For old plans as well as new ones, premiums are likely to rise next year - though the old plans still could be considerably more affordable than the newer ones.

Technically, a plan can stay grandfathered indefinitely, but few, if any, will. Most grandfathered plans have gone away already, according to the human-resources consultancy Mercer, which estimates only about a third of employers are expected to offer one in 2013.

Across the board, it is costs that will lead to the disappearance of most grandfathered plans. If employers or individual plans want to keep grandfathered status, they will have little leeway to pass higher costs along to policyholders. Any policy that increases co-payments, deductibles or co-insurance forfeits its grandfathered status.

Comparison Points
  • Grandfathered plans don't have to provide full, co-payment-free coverage of preventive services, such as flu shots, mammograms and cholesterol screenings.
  • Grandfathered plans don't have to cover a government-designated "essential benefits package" of procedures and treatments.
  • Grandfathered plans may require prior authorization for out-of-network emergency care, unlike with new plans.
  • Grandfathered policies bought by individuals carry their own exclusions, like a $750,000 annual cap on reimbursement for the aforementioned essential benefits, including hospitalization, emergency services or pediatric care.
  • The online insurance broker eHealthInsurance found that premiums were 47 percent higher and deductibles were 27 percent lower than for individual plans that will incorporate all of PPACA's new rules.
  • Average monthly premiums for individuals in plans without the newly required benefits — the closest equivalent to grandfathered plans — were $190 versus $279. Average deductibles for individuals were $2,257 versus $3,079.

Obamacare Lie:  "You Can Keep Your Existing Plan"

That difference in monthly premiums of $190 vs. $279 will entice many to keep their existing plan, assuming it is still offered. However, that setup won't last very long because companies cannot raise premiums on grandfathered plans.

Simply put, Obama lied when he said "you can keep your existing plan", knowing full well the law was purposely written to make sure that would not happen over time.

Eventually you will be stuck with a new Obamacare plan and higher premiums whether you like your existing plan or not.

Immigration Fight Moves To the House With Deep Divide

Byron York / Townhall Columnist

There will be an event on Capitol Hill this week that will tell us a lot about the future of comprehensive immigration reform. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Senate Gang of Eight reform proposal. It doesn't have any great official purpose; the Gang bill hasn't even made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee, much less the full Senate, and is not before the House. So the House committee meeting will be all talk. But the session could tell us a lot about whether House Republicans will be able to support anything that resembles the Senate proposal or that there is an unbridgeable divide between the two.

There are serious doubts about whether the GOP-led House and the Democrat-led Senate can reach an agreement. Even the title that Republican House committee chairman Bob Goodlatte has given to the hearing could spell trouble: "S. 744 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: Lessons Learned or Mistakes Repeated?" The "S. 744 in the title is the Gang of Eight bill, while the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act is the spectacular failure -- one that led to the arrival of millions of illegal immigrants in the United States -- that many of today's lawmakers say they would like to avoid. Just bringing up 1986 is something Republicans who oppose comprehensive reform do a lot; Democrats, not so much. But on Wednesday, it will frame the whole issue.

There has been a lot of talk about the House version of the Senate Gang of Eight and the bill it is crafting. Well-informed sources say House Gang members have reached agreement on most, if not all, of the issues that stood in the way of their finishing a bill. But for the larger Republican caucus in the House, the question on immigration reform will not hinge on whether it can accept this health care provision or that guest worker provision; it will hinge on the fundamental question of whether they can accept the legalization-first, enhanced-security later structure of the Gang of Eight bill. It is the most basic disagreement between the parties over immigration reform. Many in the House GOP will not be able to support a bill that contains legalization first, and nearly all Democrats will not be able to support a bill that does not contain legalization first.

"To do legalization first, with promises of future enforcement -- that's just not going to work," notes one House Republican.

The legalization-first fight will likely take the form of Democrats supporting a comprehensive bill versus Republicans in favor of dividing immigration into several separate bills. Dividing the issue would allow the House to pass border security and enforcement measures first and then to pass other measures -- legalization, guest workers, etc. -- that would take effect after the security increases are actually in place.

That is most likely what a majority of the House's 234 Republicans would prefer. But it is anathema to Democrats, and it is anathema to the Senate Gang. Recently in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican Gang members Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake joined unanimous Democrats to oppose an amendment, supported by the other six Republicans on the committee, that would have required enhanced security measures to be in place for six months before legalization could begin. For Charles Schumer and committee Democrats, that would have been a deal-killer. Graham and Flake went along.

The question in the House is whether the House Gang can produce some sort of legalization-first scheme that sounds tougher than the Senate Gang's, but still does not have a real, concrete requirement of enhanced security. Maybe that is possible. In a recent Twitter exchange with Washington Post liberal blogger Greg Sargent, I wrote, "Conservatives don't like legalization first, with no guarantee of enhanced security. Dems won't support anything else." Sargent replied: "Right. Everything is about papering over the fact that there is no actual trigger now, right?"

That is indeed right. What the House debate will show is whether Republicans will accept a bill that mirrors the Senate's legalization-first scheme or require actual security measures to be in place before legalization occurs. Whatever happens, Democrats will not move on legalization first. If Republicans accept it, an immigration reform bill will pass. If Republicans don't, the bill will fail.

What did Obama do on 9/11/2012?

Exclusive: Jack Cashill asks if BHO pulled a Clinton a la '96 during Benghazi attack

By: Jack Cashill / WND
On this past Sunday morning, Chris Wallace of Fox News grilled the administration’s newly anointed flak catcher, White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer.

One critical question was how Obama spent that long night of Sept. 11, 2012, while his charges were busy dying in Benghazi.

“With all due respect,” asked Wallace, “you didn’t answer my question. What did the president do that night?” This was a good question and one that prompts a careful look at the time line.

At 3:40 p.m. Washington time on Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi called his No. 2 man, Greg Hicks, and told him, “We’re under attack.”

(All times cited will be EDT, six hours earlier than Libyan time).

At 4:05 p.m. the State Department Operations Center issued an alert to all relevant agencies, “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.”

At 4:25 p.m. a six-member CIA team headed by Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods arrived at Stevens’ compound from the nearby annex.

Under heavy fire, Woods’ team recovered the body of Foreign Service IT specialist Sean Smith but could not find Stevens’ body in the burning building.

At 5 p.m. President Barack Obama had a pre-scheduled meeting with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who briefed him on the Benghazi situation.

At 6 p.m. Woods and his CIA team arrived back at the annex, which they would defend Alamo-style for the next six hours. They would kill an estimated 60 Libyans before the night was through.

At 6:07 p.m. the State Department Operations Center shared a report from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack. The terror group also called for an attack on the Embassy in Tripoli.

At 7:30 p.m. or thereabouts Obama engaged in an hour-long phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama hoped to mend fences with Netanyahu to help secure the Jewish vote in the upcoming election.

After roughly 8:30 p.m., there is no known accounting of Obama’s time or whereabouts.

At 11:15 p.m. Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, another former SEAL, were killed in a mortar assault at the annex. Doherty had just arrived as part of a six-man team from Tripoli.

At 1:40 a.m., having evacuated the annex, the first group of Americans flew out of Benghazi bound for Tripoli. They saw Stevens’ body at the airport and confirmed his death.

Said Pfeiffer to Wallace when asked about Obama’s evening, “He was in constant touch with his national security team and kept up to date with the events as they were happening.”

Wallace then listed all the critical people with whom Obama had little or no conversation – the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs.

Pfeiffer clarified, “He was talking to his national security staff, his National Security Council – people who would keep him up to date as these things were happening.”

“Was he in the situation room?” Wallace asked.

“I don’t remember what room he was in that night,” said Pfeiffer. “That’s a largely irrelevant fact.” No, it is not irrelevant at all.

I cannot say for sure where Obama was that evening, but if the night of July 17, 1996, set a precedent, Obama was likely in the White House family quarters.

For the record, at 8:35 p.m. on that turbulent night in the election year of 1996, President Bill Clinton and wife Hillary left a Washington fundraiser and headed back to the White House by motorcade.

At 8:31 p.m., two FAA veterans at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center observed a target arching and intersecting with Paris-bound TWA Flight 800 as it headed east off Long Island’s south shore.

A manager from that center rushed the radar data to the FAA technical center in Atlantic City, and from there it was faxed to FAA headquarters in Washington and rushed “immediately” to the White House situation room.

It was in this room, “in the aftermath of the TWA Flight 800 bombing,” as Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos unwittingly told Peter Jennings on Sept. 11, 2001, that all key parties converged.

“This looks bad,” said Ron Schleede of the National Transportation Safety Board upon first seeing the data that “suggested something fast made the turn and took the airplane.”

Anti-terror czar Richard Clarke got the message too. By 9 p.m., he was driving in to the White House to convene a meeting of his security group, not at all the norm for a plane crash.

“I dreaded what I thought was about to happen,” Clarke wrote in his best-seller “Against All Enemies.” Clarke called it “The Eisenhower option,” a retaliatory strike against Iran.

When President Clinton met with friendly historian Taylor Branch on Aug. 2, 1996, he also traced the TWA 800 disaster to Iran. “They want war,” Branch quoted Clinton as saying.

On the night of July 17, however, the president chose not to join Clarke and the other agency representatives in the situation room.

Clinton remained holed up in the family quarters with Hillary. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson and others have confirmed the president’s location that evening.

Patterson was in a position to know. He carried the nuclear football for the president, and he too was in the White House that night, though purposefully kept out of the loop.

The one person Patterson has tentatively cited as being in the family quarters with the Clintons is Sandy Berger, the deputy director of the NSA and the Clintons’ political consigliere.

As it happened, National Security Adviser Tony Lake, Sandy Berger’ boss, was not invited to the family quarters. Lake was known to excuse himself from meetings when they turned political.

That night Berger and the Clintons gathered information from the FAA radar, from the satellite data and from the eyewitness accounts and translated the data into electoral strategy.

By 3 a.m. Clinton had apparently gathered enough information to call Lake with the following message: “Dust off the contingency plans.”

Dust them off, yes, but let’s not get too serious about them. In late summer 1996, with the election comfortably in the bag, war was the last thing the Clintons wanted or needed.

On Sept. 11, 2012, war was the last thing Obama wanted or needed as well. He had already bagged Osama bin Laden, pacified al-Qaida and liberated Libya.

Or so he repeated endlessly. Foreign policy was alleged to be his electoral strong suit. Given the political dynamics, Obama likely retreated, just as the Clintons had, to the family quarters.

As Pfeiffer said, Obama probably did talk to “people who would keep him up to date as these things were happening.”

Obama and certain of these people, the political insiders, would have spent the night translating national security data into electoral strategy.

After all, Obama had a big fundraiser the next day in Vegas. That did not allow much time to establish an alibi that would preserve his carefully crafted bin Laden-slayer narrative.

It was a close call, but with a little help from the media – a special shout-out to CNN’s Candy Crowley! – the alibi worked just well enough to get the man re-elected.

History does repeat itself.

See the video on this here:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/what-did-obama-do-on-9112012/
Op-ed:
Playing tit-for-tat...Obama's war on journalism
By: Diane Sori

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees, among other things, that government shall NOT infringe upon the freedom of the press (which infers by today's standards to include all the news media...TV, radio, the web, etc.)...the Fourth Estate...that the press is NOT to be subject to censorship by the government. In other words, the government does NOT have the right to try to control or block anything from being published by the press or to prevent the expression of ideas before they are published.
But yesterday, coming on the heels of last week's AP scandal, news broke that the DOJ, in an affidavit which including a statement by FBI agent Reginald Reyes, stated that there was evidence that Fox News's chief Washington correspondent James Rosen broke the law, and is now facing charges as a probable 'co-conspirator' in a criminal spying case.

Now here's where it gets just a little too coincidental...a little too tit-for tat...what the DOJ is referring to happened back in 2009 and the Obama administration is suddenly bringing it to light now...bringing it to light to try and deflect attention away from the AP scandal...a scandal that might very well lead all the way back to the White House and its usurping occupant.

So in revenge...in an attempt to divert attention off Obama himself...this miserable administration is now trying to criminalize reporting...while trying to hide the fact that in the past this administration has used warrantless wiretapping and records seizures to identify who is talking to whom.

And while privacy laws and protections limit searching or seizing a reporter’s work, using the excuse 'but NOT when there's evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized intelligence leaks', the DOJ got a federal judge (a liberal Democratic I'm sure) to sign off on a search warrant, and seized massive amounts of information about reporter James Rosen by claiming Rosen is, "at the very least, either an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a 2010 espionage case against State Department security adviser Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.

To date, Rosen has NOT yet been formally charged with a crime per se, but Kim, who handed over a classified government report to Rosen that said North Korea would probably test a nuclear weapon in response to a UN resolution condemning previous tests, was charged in 2010 with violating the Espionage Act of 1917, one of six cases in which the Obama administration began to use the first World War-era spying law to prosecute suspected government whistleblowers.

In other words Kim was a whistleblower, and any and all whitleblowers, and those who help them in going against the Obama administration, have always been targeted for revenge for one must NEVER criticize the 'anointed one' or his minions.

And what did Rosen do for the DOJ to label him a 'co-conspirator'...he simply reported the story and NOTHING more...reported it in an online article about US intelligence official warnings that North Korea would likely respond to US sanctions with additional nuclear tests.

Like that wasn't a given with the unstable man/child Kim Jong-un in control of North Korea...that really wasn't earth-shaking news or news that warranted the targeting of a reporter doing his job.

Addressing the charges, in a statement released yesterday, FOX News called these accusations 'downright chilling' after the actual details surfaced about the FBI obtaining a warrant, but a warrant in possible violation of regulations governing such seizures, and seized all of Rosen's correspondence with Kim, and also seized Rosen's phone records tracing the timing of his calls to Kim. They also used Rosen's government issued security badge access records to track his comings and goings to and from the State Department, and obtained an additional search warrant for Rosen's personal e-mails.
All this went way above and beyond what the DOJ did when they seized the AP's records, where they looked at phone records but NOT at the actual content of the e-mails...at least as far as we know or have been told.
But we really can't believe anything this administration tells us...now can we.

And all this was done to Rosen simply because the man was doing what reporters do...report...and reporting what the msm refuses to report...the truth.

So what the recent AP scandal and now this one with Rosen shows is that the actions of the out of control, Constitution-trampling Obama administration are raising serious concerns about the gag-order tactics placed on these types of investigations, denying the press their right under the First Amendment to exchange information between reporters and their sources unimpeded by government interference...for if sources cannot give information to reporters without fear of reprisal what is the alternative...the only alternative, the one Obama and his minions so desperately want is for the media to write and report what the government, meaning Obama, tells them to write and report.
And that is something 'We the People' can NEVER allow to happen.
.