Obamacare Causes Massive Premium Increases - Nearly 100 Percent on Average

By: Bob Beauprez Townhall Columnist

As the Obama Administration juggles multiple scandals – Benghazi, IRS, and now the AP – the pack of lies that the President told to sell ObamaCare will likely go virtually unnoticed.  Nonetheless, Obama's often repeated claim that, "This legislation will also lower costs for families and businesses," was a phony as any of his spin on all his other scandals.  His standard talking point promised "your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year."

The Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has released results of a survey of 17 of the nation's largest health insurance companies requesting analyses of the effect of the PPACA's (ObamaCare) policies, mandates, taxes, and fees on premium insurance rates. 

The survey found that "massive premium increases" await the vast majority of Americans because of ObamaCare.  In summary, "consumers purchasing health insurance on the individual market may face premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent. 

Meanwhile, small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of 50 percent, with highs over 100 percent."  

The full report is available here.

When Senator Max Baucus, one of the leading Democrat sponsors of the PPACA, recently predicted the roll out of ObamaCare would be a "huge train wreck," he was far more honest that anyone else closely connected to the legislation. Baucus is retiring after 34 years in the Senate.  According to Senator Chuck Grassley who has served with Baucus virtually his entire career and preceded him as Chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, Baucus is retiring because he is "fed up" with the roll out of the health care monstrosity. 

Lies, cover-ups, and trampling of the Constitution and Rule of Law have become standard operating procedure for the Obama White House.  The volume is so great that no one even expects the truth anymore.  So, the phony premium decrease assertions about ObamaCare will likely not receive much attention in the press.  That is until millions of Americans actually get hit with the bill just months from now.

Imagine

By: Michael Reagan/ Townhall Columnist

Remember the 1996 movie, "A Time to Kill"?

An adaptation of John Grisham's 1989 legal thriller, it stars Matthew McConaughey as a small-town lawyer in Mississippi who defends a black man who killed the two white racists who had raped his 10-year-old daughter.

In his closing arguments McConaughey asks the jury to close their eyes and listen to the painful details of a story about the brutal rape of an innocent little girl.

Then he ends his gripping story with a powerful request to the jury -- "Now imagine she's white."

I was reminded of that powerful scene in "A Time to Kill" as I watched the raggedy parade of scandals coming out of Obama's Washington last week.

The tragedy in Benghazi and subsequent spinning and covering up. The IRS harassment and abuse of conservative political groups prior to the 2012 election. The Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press reporters' phone records.

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, close your eyes and think about the details of these crimes against the people by the Obama administration -- and then imagine the president is George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. `

Do you think the Benghazi, IRS and AP stories might have been covered any differently if the president's name didn't start with "O" and his party didn't start with "D"?

Of course they would have.

Do you think the America people would know a little more about Benghazi today if last fall editors at The Washington Post, The New York Times or "60 Minutes" had issued orders to dig into what really happened there and why Ambassador Stevens was targeted for assassination?

I don't know all the facts and answers about Benghazi or the IRS. But lots of folks in the Obama government do, and digging them up is supposed to be the job of an honest news media -- some members of which are being shamed into finally doing their jobs.

It's pretty amazing. Thanks to the IRS' dirty tricks, even liberals are turning on St. Barack.

He now is being compared to Nixon, the only president every American is allowed to hate. Liberal pundits are dusting off the old "W" word -- Watergate -- and recycling forgotten terms like "enemies list."

Of course the golfer in chief says he's shocked -- shocked, he tells us -- to learn IRS bureaucrats were doing dirty work on his behalf.

Of course the president knew nothing about the IRS' crimes until last week. It was not his fault. It was those damn underlings again. He can't help it if they love him so much they break the law.

And when the Justice Department went fishing at the AP last year for information about reporters' phone calls, it was new news to the Prez. "I must have been golfing with Tiger that weekend," I think I heard him say, "but I'll get to the bottom of it and fire a few secretaries."

Seriously.

Shouldn't the media be asking if Obama has an enemies list? Or are enemies lists things that are only kept by Republicans and conservatives?

These major scandals rising out of the Obama administration -- each pre-dating the 2012 election -- are only now starting to attract the mainstream media attention they deserve.

The New York-DC media ignored Benghazi or pooh-poohed its importance until Obama was safely re-elected.

Now it's beginning to sound like we should have known about those partisan crimes at the IRS last year, too -- and we would have if Big Liberal Media had been acting like watchdogs instead of Obama lapdogs.

It's great to see the shine finally coming off President Obama's phony halo. But it's not the result of the "Second Term Curse," as some of his apologists would like us to believe.

And it's not because the mainstream media have finally stepped up and done their jobs as fair and honest journalists. It's simply the result of the president's character and the character of his sleazy regime.

Newsmax
Obama to Announce Major US Nuclear Force Cuts Soon

By Bill Gertz

• 6
  inShare

President Barack Obama is set to announce a new round of strategic nuclear warhead reductions in the near future as part of a disarmament agenda that could reduce U.S. strategic warheads to as few as 1,000 weapons.

The next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks would follow Obama's expected announcement that the United States' arsenal of strategic warheads can be reduced unilaterally to around 1,000 warheads. That position is expected as part of the Pentagon's long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study that Obama was expected to sign earlier this year.

Recent press reports have indicated that President Obama may make the cuts -- fully one-third of the nation's arsenal -- by executive action and without Congressional authorization.

Specialists on nuclear deterrence say further cuts beyond the 1,550 deployed warheads mandated by the 2010 New START arms treaty could undermine the United States' ability to deter nuclear powers like Russia and China, who have significant modernization programs for their nuclear arsenals underway.

Further cuts also are likely to embolden other non-nuclear states, including Japan, to consider building their own nuclear arsenals, analysts say.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is "the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American president attempt to do."

"This is not the time to embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasing their nuclear forces," he said.

A U.S. official familiar with strategic nuclear policy said the delay in signing the implementation study may be the result of concerns among military commanders in charge of nuclear deterrence that China's nuclear arsenal is expanding more rapidly than anticipated, and that Russia and other nuclear states, including Pakistan and North Korea, are modernizing their forces.

"I hear increasing concerns about China," the official said. "We really don't know what they're doing and what decisions are being made" about China's nuclear-force modernization.

In addition to cuts to the nation's nuclear arsenal, the Obama administration appears to be getting ready to limit U.S. missile defenses in a new agreement with Russia.

Obama wrote a still-secret letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin that was delivered in Moscow by White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon during a visit there in mid-April.

Putin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters in Moscow the letter "addresses problems of military policy, including the missile defense and nuclear arsenals issues."

A reply from the Russian president is expected soon, and a deal on both missile defenses and new talks on strategic nuclear reductions could come during Obama's visit to Russia in September.

Despite the Obama administration's pledge to not complete the final phase of its missile-defense program in Eastern Europe, Moscow remains vehemently opposed to the U.S- backed NATO plan to deploy a series of sea- and land-based missile defenses in Europe over the next five years.

Washington says the deployment is meant to counter Iran's long-range missiles, but Moscow insists they are covertly aimed at countering its offensive strategic missiles.

"The administration is hoping to get some sort of missile-defense deal by June, so that by September or October Putin and Obama can announce a new round of nuclear-reduction talks," the official said.

Rogers: Unilateral Reductions of 'Immense Importance'

The impending nuclear cuts and missile-defense concessions are raising concerns among senior Republicans on Capitol Hill who fear the president is now following through on his open-microphone comment in March 2012 to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Obama was overheard promising the Russians "more flexibility" on missile defenses after the November election.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, said recently the administration's review of the nuclear war plan is nearly complete and "is likely to recommend significant further U.S. nuclear-force reductions."

"As the stockpile shrinks in size, we have reached the point where further reductions take on immense importance to the nation's security and international stability," said Rogers, an Alabama Republican.

Further angering Republicans are concerns that the administration, in order to avoid congressional opposition and a difficult Senate ratification process, is planning to make the next round of cuts through an executive agreement rather than a treaty that requires Senate approval.

Rogers vowed to oppose that process. "Let me be clear: I intend to ensure that no further reductions to U.S. nuclear forces, including New START treaty reductions, will occur without a formal treaty or explicit, affirmative authorization by Congress," he said in an April 24 speech to a breakfast group on Capitol Hill.

In April, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Newsmax TV that "there will be a tremendous backlash" if Obama moves to unilaterally deactivate a significant portion of the nuclear arsenal without congressional approval.

"What kind of signals are we sending? Our nuclear deterrent arsenal needs to be modernized," said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As a further indication of the coming nuclear cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Air Force to conduct an environmental impact statement of shutting down an entire wing of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles -- one of the clearest signs of coming additional force cuts. The New START treaty contains no provision for shuttering an ICBM facility.

While the United States under Obama's anti-nuclear weapons agenda is seeking to build down its forces, other nations, notably Russia and China, are aggressively modernizing their weapons.

"The problem is not just Russia. Every other nuclear power is building up their arsenals," the U.S. official said.

The Russia strategic buildup is stark, officials say. It includes the following new systems:

• A new mobile ICBM called the Yars-M to be deployed later this year that will use a more powerful fuel, allowing the missile to better defeat missile defenses. The missile will have a range of up to 6,835 miles and have 10 warheads.

• A new rail-mobile ICBM is being deployed by 2020. The Soviet Union was the first to deploy a rail-mobile SS24 in the 1980s.

• New submarines are being deployed with new submarine-launched Bulava missiles.

• A new strategic bomber to be deployed by 2020.

• A new Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile will be deployed by 2013 and a new Kaliber submarine-launched cruise missile is being developed.

China's strategic nuclear buildup also has been under way for a decade and includes three new road-mobile ICBMs: the DF-31, DF-31A, and DF-41, and a new submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2.

The Pentagon revealed in its latest annual report to Congress on the Chinese military that China is building two new classes of missile submarines -- one for nuclear ballistic missiles and one for conventional cruise missiles. It was the first time the Pentagon revealed the new missile submarines, which were disclosed as China has begun deploying Jin-class nuclear-missile submarines and new Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

U.S. intelligence agencies estimate China has a relatively small nuclear arsenal of around 240 warheads. The intelligence estimate was based in large measure on China's declared policy of "no-first-use" -- that it would not be the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict.

However, the recent Chinese defense white paper, the authoritative statement of Chinese military and defense policy, for the first time made no mention of the no-first-use nuclear policy, raising new concerns that China is on the path for a large-scale strategic nuclear-warhead buildup.

Former State Department intelligence analyst John Tkacik said the rapid deployment of Chinese missile submarines and the shift from single-warhead to multiple-warhead missiles is changing the strategic balance.

"Doing the math, we're looking at 60 JL-2s on five submarines, each with at least three MIRVs (multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles), so that's 180 new Chinese nuclear warheads that we have to plan for," Tkacik said. "It gives me the heebie-jeebies."

Additionally, China recently deployed the first of its unique intermediate range anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to defeat U.S. aircraft carriers that are the key platform that would be used in any defense of Taiwan, the island state that China has said it is prepared to use force to retake. The missiles, known as the DF-21D, are considered a major threat to U.S. naval forces operating in the western Pacific.

Asked during a recent congressional hearing if Chinese naval forces are a worry, Adm. Jonathan Greenert said: "I would just say that I'm vigilant. I would hate to say that I'm worried, yet, because I'm not necessarily worried. Very vigilant, and we need to pay attention and understand the intent. And challenge them on that intent."

North Korea, which has conducted three underground nuclear tests, also is said to be developing small warheads for missiles. Asahi Shimbun reported in January, quoting intelligence sources, that North Korea was ready to test a "fusion-boosted fission bomb" in its next test. The sophisticated bomb could be placed on a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, or North Korea's new road-mobile ICBM, the KN-08.

Pakistan also is developing more modern nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them, U.S. officials said. Pakistan is said to be getting assistance from China, which provided the designs for Pakistan's first warheads, which in turn were based on stolen U.S. nuclear-warhead designs.

India, Pakistan's rival, also recently tested a new intercontinental-ballistic missile and is working on an advanced ICBM.

U.S. Strategic Command Calls for Modernization

With other nations making efforts to expand and modernize their nuclear forces, U.S. military officials have voiced concerns about the need to upgrade America's existing stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The commander of U.S. nuclear forces said he is concerned about cuts in both the number of warheads as well as shortages in funding needed to modernize aging nuclear weapons and infrastructure.

Nuclear forces that need upgrades include delivery systems, weapons life-extension programs, stockpile monitoring, naval-reactor design work, and upgrades for nuclear command and control, Gen. Robert Kehler, head of the Omaha-based U.S. Strategic Command, said during a talk last June at the Council on Foreign Relations.

If further funding cuts are made, "we will have to go back and do what we did with this round of reductions: completely review what those impacts could be and make the appropriate recommendations," the four-star general said.

"Of all the elements of the nuclear enterprise, I'm most concerned with the potential for declining or inadequate investment in the nuclear-weapons enterprise itself; some declining investment that would result in our inability to sustain the deterrent force," he said.

Rogers said he is concerned about "the sorry state of the nuclear modernization commitments made during the last round" of talks with Russia.

Most Senate Republicans opposed the New START Treaty, noting its significant gaps. While bringing Russia and the United States to parity in strategic nuclear weapons of 1,550 each, it allowed Russia to maintain its sizeable advantage in tactical nuclear warheads, with an estimated stockpile of 3,800 such weapons. The United States, in comparison, has less than 500.

In the end, a handful of Senate Republicans supported ratification of New START after Obama promised to invest $85 billion over 10 years after 2010 to fix the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal and infrastructure, which is largely based on outdated technology that spans the Cold War period from the 1960s to the 1980s.

While the Pentagon has said it will try to protect nuclear-force modernization from the devastating effect of across-the-board cuts as part of congressional sequestration, funding for nuclear modernization is being cut.

Rogers said in a recent speech that funding levels agreed to in 2010 were the "minimum required to accomplish this modernization." However, the administration is underfunding nuclear forces by between $1 billion and $1.6 billion, he said.

"Setting aside the gross budget numbers and looking at capability, it is easy to see that nuclear modernization is in grave danger," Rogers said.

Among the weapons systems in jeopardy is the replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine, which is being delayed. Other programs that are being delayed are urgently needed life-extension programs for W-78 and W-88 nuclear warheads, the long-range standoff cruise missile, and numerous other programs. And one of the most urgently needed facilities -- a plutonium laboratory in New Mexico -- was canceled.

U.S. programs being delayed included the submarine-launched Trident D-5, which is now two years late and will not be deployed until 2029 at the earliest.

In addition, Congress and the Obama administration have blocked any development of newer and safer nuclear weapons, allowing only the refurbishing of older warheads.

The U.S. official knowledgeable about nuclear forces said the Obama administration's approach to strategic nuclear cuts fits the model of what the late U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick called the "blame America first" advocates.

"They see everything in the world as all the United States' fault and want to restrict our strategic forces as a solution," the official said.

Massachusetts: Seven Muslims caught trespassing at large public water supply for Boston; patrols stepped up statewide

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

They “cited their education and career interests” as their reason for being there. So it was a field trip, you see. A routine after-midnight field trip. What's the big deal?

Remember: the Canadian jihadists who were recently caught discussed poisoning the water supply (and the air) to murder as many as 100,000 people, and poisoning the water supply of a major city has long been bandied about among jihadis as a consummation devoutly to be wished.

How's that wonderful Boston-area interfaith dialogue working out for you, Bishop?

"7 Caught Trespassing At Quabbin Reservoir; Patrols Stepped Up Across State," from CBS Boston, May 14:

BELCHERTOWN (CBS) – Shortly after midnight Tuesday, seven people were caught trespassing at the Quabbin Reservoir. 

State Police say the five men and two women are from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore, and “cited their education and career interests” for being in the area. The men told police they were chemical engineers and recent college graduates.

The Quabbin, in Belchertown, is one of the country’s largest man-made public water supplies. Boston’s drinking water comes from the Quabbin and the Wachusett Reservoirs.

State Police say there were no warrants or advisories on any of the individuals and “there was no evidence that the seven were committing any crime beyond the trespassing.”

All seven were allowed to leave and will be summonsed to court for trespassing. The FBI is investigating and routine checks of public water supplies have been increased following the incident....

Op-ed: 
The Benghazi e-mails...an Obama hoped for panacea that isn't  
By: Diane Sori


Oh whoopee-do...under intense pressure from Republicans to answer charges that the Obama administration covered up details of the night of September 11, 2012, out of the thousands of pages of e-mails and communiques concerning Benghazi, the White House 'suddenly' decided to release about 100 pages of 'repetitive' internal e-mails concerning their response, or lack thereof, to the horrific events of that night.

In what amounts to throwing Republicans a bone, Obama and crew thinks a Benghazi 'document dump' (including communiques with pertinent information and names redacted) of a mere 100 or so pages will placate his critics, and will make Benghazi and the Republicans go away.

Guess what...it won't...even though AG Eric 'Fast & Furious' Holder again said today that he will NOT appoint a special prosecutor to get to the truth about Benghazi..hell, this administration doesn't want the truth about anything getting out now does it.

And so this White House tried for months to keep these e-mails and communiques secret because they knew they would show how the CIA report was changed...re-edited...over and over as to what would be told to the public about that night and what wouldn't be told...as in what must stay hidden at all costs.

In fact, those who have seen the e-mails say they speak volumes about what has always been suspected...that in the days after the Benghazi attack when State Department officials met with Obama administration officials at the White House, that the Obama officials crossed out sections of the original CIA report, a report that was supposed to be made public but wasn't. The report that was released reflected a removal of any mention of terrorism, and any mention of the name of the islamic militant group Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked group whose members the CIA said were involved in the attack.

The earlier pre-changed versions of the report, as witnessed by the e-mails, also spoke of prior attacks against western targets in Benghazi, as well as intelligence warnings by the CIA up until the day before the attack, but these were also missing from the final report as was reference to the fact that a day before the attack radicals in Cairo had called for a demonstration in front of the US embassy "encouraging jihadists to break into the Embassy."

The final report was truly unrecognizable from the original CIA report, and this unrecognizable report became the 'talking points' Susan Rice used when she went on the Sunday talk-show circuit, where her bloviations and lies dared NOT speak the truth about Obama's possible involvement in Benghazi.

And isn't it odd that CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell signed off on the final report (even though then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the final watered-down version) knowing that it was all a lie thus putting his career on the line, and for what...to protect a miserable excuse of a president and his equally miserable administration's lie about a YouTube video being the cause of the attack.

But any and everything had to be done to protect the 'Benghazi Secret'...and you know what secret I mean...the secret about a gun and weapons running operation to Syria that Ambassador Stevens found out about...that Ambassador Stevens had to be silenced for...for the Benghazi cover-up was NEVER about a re-election campaign, and I wish those media talking heads on our side would stop trying to push that as the reason why the murder of four Americans had to be covered-up.

And to cover for that gun running secret WH Press Secretary Jay Carney outwardly lied over and over to 'We the People' that the White House and State Department made NO major changes to the 'talking points', even when State Department officials admitted the 'talking points' were changed to protect the FBI investigation and sensitive intelligence.

And the lies continued even in recent days as Carney, speaking on Obama's behalf, claimed that months ago congressional committees had already reviewed the e-mails in question, and "concluded that, in fact, there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used."

LIAR for NO such conclusion was ever made by anyone on any congressional committees.

But lying is the forte of this administration...for they knew damn well that the attack had NOTHING to do with a ridiculous You-Tube video, and even these 'selectively' released e-mails prove just that.

So whether Obama likes it or NOT Benghazi is NOT going away any time soon for all these e-mails do is raise even more questions about what happened that fateful night, and even more importantly raise the question as to why it happened...and the answer to the why might very well bring down a man who should NEVER have been allowed to run for president in the first place.