Friday, September 27, 2013

Iran declares victory over Obama, says U.S. "reached this conclusion that they can't challenge the powerful Iran"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Can't? Won't, as long as Obama and those who think like him are in the White House. "Iran Declares Victory Over Obama," by Adam Kredo for the Washington Free Beacon, September 26:
A senior Iranian military leader said that his country’s “power and resistance” has forced the United States and President Barack Obama to kowtow to Tehran, according to reports in Iran’s state-run media. 
The senior military aide to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said that Iran has strong-armed Obama into accepting its nuclear rights.
“The Americans have sensibly chosen a type of flexibility and withdrawal vis a vis Iran,” Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted as saying on Wednesday by the Fars News Agency.
The United States “reached this conclusion that they can’t challenge the powerful Iran,” Safavi was quoted as saying.
The Iranian press celebrated Obama’s speech before the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, describing it as a “different tone” and a “new path,” according to reports.
One Iranian newspaper even declared, “the time for change has arrived,” according to AFP.
Iranian military leaders such as Safavi claim that Obama’s shift from the rhetoric of war to that of peace signals Tehran’s arrival as a world power.
“It seems that the Americans have understood this fact that Iran is a powerful and stable country in the region which uses logical and wise methods in confrontation with its enemies,” Safavi told Fars in an interview.
“Mr. Obama as the U.S. president announced for the first time that ‘we are not seeking regime change in Iran and respect the Iranian nation’s right to access peaceful nuclear energy’ and this stabilized Iran’s right,” he said.
But while Obama’s attitude may be shifting, Iran intends to retain its hardline rhetoric, according to Safavi.
“Tehran will maintain its stance vis a vis the U.S.,” Fars reported, stating Iran “cannot forget the U.S. animosities throughout the last decades, including its support for the 2009 street unrests.”
Safavi also criticized Obama for speaking about the possibility of Iran’s further isolation by continuing to pursue its nuclear ambitions and calling on Tehran to choose other ways in dealing with the regional and international issues.
America must immediately “remove the [economic] sanctions step by step and a mutual confidence is created, then we can be hopeful,” according to Safavi, who also called on “Americans to desist from their continued obstinacy against Iran and don’t follow the Zionist lobby.”
A top Iranian legislator echoed Safavi’s comments on Wednesday when he declared that Obama changed his tune “because of the resistance shown by the Iranian government and nation,” Fars reported....

Although the Hyde Amendment restricts the use of federal funds for abortion, with the exceptions of pregnancies caused by rape and incest, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, released a paper on Thursday that showed how Multi-State Plans created through the Affordable Care Act could result in taxpayers subsidizing up to 111,500 abortions each year.

Multi-State Plans (MSPs) are the Affordable Care Act’s version of the “public option” health insurance plan.
“Multi-state” is another word for “national” and the degree of regulation of plan content, control of medical-loss ratios, and other factors ensure that these plans will operate more like regulated utilities than truly private insurance.
MSPs will be gradually introduced through a four-year period. By 2015, 35 states are expected to have MSPs in place, and all 50 states will have MSPs by 2017. The plans are intended to create “competition” in state markets, but will have the advantage that their administrative costs will be taxpayer funded, unlike a private insurance company.

According to the Lozier paper, however, these plans could be the key to taxpayer funding of abortions:
What these advantaged plans will do with respect to abortion coverage is not yet fully clear. However, Section 1334(a)(6) of the ACA states that:
In entering into contracts under this subsection, the Director [of OPM] shall ensure that with respect to multi-State qualified health plans offered in an Exchange, there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i). (Emphasis added).
Currently, 27 states and the District of Columbia permit insurance plans to cover abortions. Only roughly 12 percent of abortions are paid for by private insurance, as women are often ashamed to report abortion to third parties.

According to Lozier Institute’s analysis, over 5.5 million women will potentially gain coverage for abortion under the Affordable Care Act.
If 2 percent of all women of childbearing age have abortions each year, an estimated 111,500 girls and women who will have abortions in coming years will have new coverage in effect for them. If only one third of the girls and women who are newly privately covered for elective abortions proceed and file for them, an additional 18,397 abortions will be paid for each year under ObamaCare’s exchange expansion. Publicly funded abortions, on the other hand, could rise by as much as 53,600 – with roughly half of that increase occurring in New York and California, two states with high existing abortion rates.

Floods! Shootings! Fire! Hurricanes! Obamacare!

As my home state of Colorado rocks under the worst floods in 100 years, Obama has declared the state’s flooded areas a disaster area.

“Obama’s declaration makes federal aid available to supplement state and local recovery efforts in Boulder County,” reports The Hill. “That aid can include grants for temporary housing and home repairs or low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses.”

Estimates vary regarding the number of people missing. I’ve seen headlines put the number at between 500 and 1,000, but The Hill says it’s 200.

But what is a flood, in terms of life and limb, when Obamacare looms over the country as a whole? That’s not a rhetorical question either.

Obamacare has been likened to a “disaster,” a “trainwreck” and other implacable forces of nature or accident that gouge out the health, wealth and well-being of a community. The numbers of people affected just last week by the looming implementation of Obamacare easily numbers in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands.

Thousands of part-time employees at the boutique grocery chain Trader Joe’s, for example, were told last week that they’d be losing benefits in favor of a $500 stipend for exchange-based healthcare.

Some of those employees will pay more now for health insurance, some will pay a bit less. But however those employees make out, the rest of us will pay more as Obamacare costs start will pay more now for health insurance, some will pay a bit less. But however those employees make out, the rest of us will pay more as Obamacare costs start to mount. 

“Trader Joe's is essentially shifting the costs it used to pay for health insurance onto the federal government,” admits the Washington Post, one of Obamacare’s top proponents.

Trader Joe’s joins IBM, UPS, and the City of Chicago as the most high profile institutions that have shifted the cost of employee benefits to Uncle Same Ole, Same Ole.

But it’s not just costs that make it a disaster area.

Michael Cannon from Cato writes about a new book from David Goldhill, a Democrat, who has reexamined his belief in universal care after his experience with his father’s death convinced him that government healthcare killed his father.

“In 2007, David Goldhill’s father died from infections acquired in a hospital, one of more than two hundred thousand avoidable deaths per year caused by medical error,” says the publisher’s pitch for Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father--and How We Can Fix It. “The bill was enormous—and Medicare paid it. These circumstances left Goldhill angry and determined to understand how world-class technology and personnel could coexist with such carelessness—and how a business that failed so miserably could be paid in full.”

Suffice to say the book isn’t kind to Obamacare or government run healthcare.

“[T]he frustrating reality is that despite more than sixty years of government efforts – representing the work of both political parties,” writes Goldhill, “we are moving further and further away from what we want. Prices are higher, more people are excluded from needed care, more excess treatments are performed, and more people die from preventable errors.”

It’s that “more people die from preventable errors” part that should have all of us concerned. Preventable error is what the government is really good at. It’s also what designates Obamacare as truly a man-caused disaster area, just like other natural disaster areas.

There are a lot of good arguments against the implementation of Obamacare: it’s expensive, it erodes liberty, it is unduly intrusive, it’s subject to political influence, it’s inefficient, it kills jobs, it gives incentives to companies to offload benefits on to the government. These are all good and true arguments.

Liberals try to trump these arguments by saying their commitment to universal healthcare proves that they CARE more about people.

In fact, as Goldhill makes clear, the liberal- or shall we say statists’- commitment to universal coverage will kill more people in due time than all the flooding in Colorado from statehood to present day. It will kill more people than all the mass shootings will- ever. It will, just next year, kill more people than Hurricane Katrina; more people than the fire at the Seaside boardwalk in New Jersey, which casualty count now stands at zero, depsite the breathless press coverage.

But unlike the other disasters, the Obamacare disaster was a man-caused “Disaster of Choice” or a “Catastrophic Choice” to quote our current Secretary of State who seems to know a lot about catastrophic choosing. After all he helped pass the Obamacare law when he was in the Senate.

And it proves that high capacity legislation is much more dangerous than high capacity magazines are.

Democrats carefully chose this disaster.

Then they crafted it and created it just for you, and you, and you and you, with the belief that once imposed on all of us we may now rest in peace.

Obama’s ‘Please Kick Me’ Appearance At The U.N.

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Obama’s ‘Please Kick Me’ Appearance At The U.N.
Chalk up another embarrassing rebuff for a U.S. President at the Mecca of international socialism, the United Nations.

Barack Obama’s team let it be known that the President would be delighted to meet Iranian President Hasan Rouhani while the two were at the U.N. this past Tuesday. The two could shake hands, smile at each other and pose for an historic photo op.

They wouldn’t even have to discuss anything of substance, merely look like they were prepared to get along.

“Thanks, but no thanks” was the insulting Iranian response. At least their rebuff was announced before Obama was left standing alone, with his arm stuck out and a stupid smile on his face.

Guess Obama’s peeps didn’t learn anything from history. Back in 2000, then-President Bill Clinton offered the same opportunity to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, another supposed moderate. Khatami also nixed shaking hands with the President of the United States.

Wouldn’t you think that someone on Obama’s staff would have made sure he and Rouhani would be smiling together for the camera before leaking news about it to the media? This is not only sloppy diplomacy, Mr. President; it’s downright embarrassing incompetence.

Please note that Obama is so eager to negotiate with Iran that he’s even willing to put up with some egg on his face. And Rouhani isn’t the only nasty ruler he’s been willing to make nice with. Heck, we’re even willing to sit down at a conference table with the lunatics who run North Korea.

And don’t forget about all of those cozy chats with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who has been only too happy to step into the role of negotiator-by-proxy. No doubt Obama is hoping that the world will soon forget all that talk about military strikes, inviolable red lines and the need to see Bashar Assad kicked out of the Syrian presidency.

Is there anyone this President isn’t willing to negotiate with?

Yes, there is one group that is beyond the pale and one issue that Obama won’t discuss under any circumstances. Negotiate with Republicans over the fate of the U.S. economy? Not on your life!

Obama has made it clear he won’t give an inch over his demand that Congress raise the debt ceiling without attaching any conditions to it. No reduction in spending, no promise to balance the budget someday, no give-and-take under any circumstances. Here is the one issue on which he vows there will be absolutely no compromise whatsoever.

The President has the nerve to claim that this is how it has always been, that Congress has never attached non-budget items to legislation raising the debt ceiling. Here’s how he put it last week, when he spoke to the Business Roundtable:
You have never seen in the history of the United States the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt.
His claim, like so many other things he has said with such certainty, is total bunk. Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker for The Washington Post, didn’t have to dig very far to confirm that debt-ceiling legislation has been linked to such disparate causes as campaign-finance reform, Social Security, ending the bombing in Cambodia and voluntary school prayer.

A classic example occurred in 1980, when the House and Senate voted to repeal one of Jimmy Carter’s favored solutions to the energy crisis that existed then. Carter had demanded a fee on imported oil that would have raised the cost of a gallon of gas by 10 cents. Congress said “no way” in an attachment to legislation Carter very much wanted: authorization to borrow even more money he could spend.

When Carter vetoed the measure, the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to override him. The vote was 335-34 in the House and 68-10 in the Senate. So much for Obama’s claim that such legislation was “never seen in the history of the United States.” Kessler rightly gives the president four Pinocchios for his duplicity on this one.

So what could be attached to a new debt-ceiling bill? For starters, how about a one-year delay in Obamacare? Obama has already agreed to a one-year delay for many businesses; how about giving the same break to the rest of us?

Yes, I know. The House has passed a bill to halt all funding for this healthcare monstrosity. But there is no chance that the Senate will agree. And even if by some miracle the bill’s proponents could find five or six Democrats who would vote with them (something I give a 0 percent likelihood of happening), does anyone think there are any circumstances that would persuade Obama to sign it?

Not on your life.

Looks like we’ll see another exciting game of Washington playing chicken, folks.

In the meantime, what did you think of Texas senator Ted Cruz’s dramatic, all-night speech on the Senate floor, listing all of the reasons to oppose funding Obamacare?

He talked about a lot more than the Affordable Care Act, of course. He narrated the classic Dr. Seuss book Green Eggs and Ham, described the incredible bravery of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and even compared conservatives’ efforts today to the rebel alliance in the “Star Wars” films. All in all, the freshman Senator put on quite a show.

Despite some catty remarks from his opponents (Senate Majority Leader Harry Read called the near-filibuster a “massive waste of time”) and much mockery in the mainstream media, I think Cruz scored a lot of points for his cause. The response on Twitter and other social media confirms that opinion. So congratulations to him and the other conservative stalwarts who had the courage to stand with him.

And speaking of Cruz’s fellow Republicans, shame on those who have been trying to stab the Tea Party favorite in the back. The latest example of their despicable behavior came last week. After Chris Wallace announced that Cruz would be interviewed on his “Fox News Sunday” program, the TV host described what happened next:
This has been one of the strangest weeks I’ve ever had in Washington, and I say that because as soon as we listed Ted Cruz as our featured guest this week, I got unsolicited research and questions, not from Democrats, but from top Republicans.
Wallace said the reason for slipping him the negative material was obvious: so he could “hammer Cruz” when he appeared.

Ain’t politics fun?

By this time next week, I expect that some sort of funding for the Federal government will be approved by Congress and signed by the President. It may just be for a few months, but I don’t think the Republican majority in the House will agree to a government shutdown. Not yet. Too bad; if we could control who got sent home and who kept getting a paycheck, it could be the best thing to happen to our country in years.

We all know that Obama and his henchmen would make any shutdown as painful as possible for as many of us as possible — just as the Administration did with sequestration, but a thousand times worse.

But don’t despair. This just one battle in a long-range war, my friends. And there is no doubt we’re getting more warriors on our side every day.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.