Thursday, October 31, 2013

The Allen West Foundation

There’s a hole in the conservative movement.

Did you know:
  • 80% of non-white voters are liberal, and;
  • Only 20% of Congress has a military background compared to 80% in 1977?
And there isn’t an organization that focuses on solving this problem year round.

Until now.

The Allen West Foundation is going to fill the gap. We’re going to bring conservative minorities and veterans to the table. Year round, we will train and inspire the next leaders of the conservative movement.
Video: Welcome to the Allen West Foundation
Watch the video, and learn more about our mission at

Just think of who the conservative leaders are today . . . Senators Tim Scott and Marco Rubio, Governor Susana Martinez, and more. They’re the ones sending shockwaves through the liberal establishment by fighting for our freedom!

And there’s no doubt that the men and women we help right now will follow in their footsteps.

Thanks for partnering with me to fill this hole in the conservative movement.

Steadfast and Loyal,

Lt. Col. Allen B. West, USA (ret)

P.S. The Allen West Foundation is filling a hole in the conservative movement. We’re going to train and inspire a new generation of conservative minorities and veterans. Help us solve this problem by making a gift today.
Let's Solve It
Night Watch

China: On 28 October, a car crashed and caught fire near Tiananmen Square in Beijing, killing five people and injuring 40 people. Chinese authorities have determined that at least two of the occupants were Uighurs. Witnesses reported the car did not try to avoid pedestrians as it drove along the sidewalk.

Officials increased security at pivotal intersections, subway stations and tourist sites across the capital on Tuesday. Police also notified hotels to report on eight persons from Xinjiang in western China in connection with the "incident."

Comment: Chinese media have avoided calling the crash a suicide attack by Uighur militants, but it looks like a suicide car bomb attack without the bomb. This is a serious security lapse because Beijing usually is free from terrorist incidents. Reprisals will be swift and severe against the Uighurs in Xinjiang and anyone who helped the perpetrators in Beijing and en route.

Syria-Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW): Update. International inspectors overseeing the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile missed the 27 October deadline for visiting all chemical weapons sites in Syria, but have provided more details of the findings.

According to press accounts of a report by the chief of OPCW, Syria has declared 41 facilities at 23 chemical sites where it stores approximately 1,300 tons of precursors and agents, and over 1,200 unfilled munitions to deliver them. The OPCW inspectors corroborated the information provided by Syria at 37 of the 41 facilities and were able to visit 21 of the 23 sites. The remaining two sites are in contested regions where security conditions prevented an inspection visit.

The OPCW report indicates the 41 facilities include 18 chemical weapons production facilities, 12 chemical weapons storage facilities, eight mobile units to fill chemical weapons, and three chemical weapons-related facilities.

Syria also submitted information on approximately 1,000 metric tons of Category 1 chemical weapons, most of which are precursors which are rarely used for peaceful purposes; approximately 290 metric tons of Category 2 substances which are toxic chemicals that pose significant risk; and approximately 1,230 unfilled chemical munitions, which were not described.

"In addition, the Syrian authorities reported finding two cylinders not belonging to them, which are believed to contain chemical weapons," the OPCW chief said.

Comment: There are no penalties for missing the 27 October deadline. The tight inspection schedule apparently was established to ensure Syrian cooperation by a dubious US. Syrian cooperation has made that provision look pointless.

The US-Russian agreement on eliminating the chemical weapons contains no provision for their disposal, including who pays for it, where will it take place, who will move the materials and how. OPCW has declared it has no capabilities for the ultimate disposal of the materials.

Even with the unsolved problems, this inspection process has disclosed for the first time in public the size and nature of the chemical weapons threat that had been targeted against Israel. Regardless of the outcome of the fighting in Syria, the elimination of 1,300 tons of chemical weapons and 1,230 munitions would be an absolute good.

Egypt: Update on the constitution: Amr al-Shubaki, a member of the 50-member committee tasked to amend the constitution, provided an update to the media on 28 October on the status of key constitutional issues, especially the system of government.

Al-Shubaki said that there is a strong tendency toward applying a "mixed semi-presidential system."

He criticized calls for implementing a strict parliamentary system. "Implementing the parliamentary system in Egypt will be a disaster because we are not qualified to this system right now (sic)."

A-Shubaki stressed the need to limit the president's authority, saying, "The condition for establishing a successful presidential system is to prevent the executive authority from expanding over the legislative and judicial authorities and to separate authorities. This will be guaranteed in the new constitution. "

"The new constitution includes a real separation between the three authorities and two thirds of the people have the right to make a no-confidence vote against the president of the republic because the people have the right to withdraw confidence from the president via referendum."

Comment: All-Shubaki is an analyst at Al Ahram Centre for Political Studies as well as a member of the committee. His commentaries indicate he is a secularist and a strong advocate of a democratic government.

The comment that Egypt is not "qualified" for a parliamentary system is a reflection of the experience under the Mursi regime which used democratic elections to enable him to implement an Islamist agenda that Mursi did not mention during the presidential election campaign last year. The constitutional committee is trying to insert safeguards against that.

Another safeguard is a stricter separation of powers among the presidency, legislature and judiciary so as to limit executive power relative to the other branches of government.

A third safeguard is a novel provision by which the president is subject to a no-confidence vote by the electorate through a referendum. This would be independent of the election cycle.

The thinking shows an earnest effort to guard against abuse of power. They provision that al Shubaki did not discuss is the amendment procedure. In some countries, the national legislature can vote constitutional amendments without a public referendum. An easy amendment process is an invitation to abuse.

A weakness in a no-confidence vote provision is that it requires a degree of political awareness and ownership of the system by most of the electorate. Even with a well-written constitution, it is far from clear that Egyptians outside the major cities have those characteristics, except when the issues are religion and taxes. In any event, even the best constitution is no safeguard against a determined military coup cabal.

Apparently, President Barack Obama was fibbing when he said in 2009 that under his Affordable Care Act, "if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." On Wednesday, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler rated that pledge as a four-Pinocchio whopper.

On Monday, Peter Lee, the executive director of Covered California, the Golden State's Obamacare exchange, informed the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board that 800,000 to 900,000 Californians will lose their individual health care plans at the end of the year. Nationally, as many as half of the millions of consumers with private plans will lose their coverage and have to buy an Obamacare plan. Asked about Obama's promise, Lee responded that it was "not well-stated" and "may have been an inarticulate way of describing what the realities are."

Lee argues that Covered California policies are better than today's private plans. Exchange policies offer no lifetime cap on benefits, preventive care with no copayments, and no refusal for pre-existing conditions. Quoth Lee, consumers "can shop as they never did before."

Likewise, White House spokesman Jay Carney charged that the current individual health care market is "the Wild West" with "substandard" care. The suggestion is that those who are about to be thrown off their health plans should be grateful.

James Stokes of Novato, Calif., isn't a happy shopper. An Obama voter, he wrote to me that his family premiums will more than double if he buys under Covered California. "Double premiums for the same service as before," Stokes wrote. "Am I missing something here?"

Robert Laszewski, a Virginia insurance industry consultant, won't be sending the White House a thank-you note. Blue Cross canceled his "Cadillac" policy. "Never had a procedure for either my wife or myself turned down," he blogged. "Wellness benefits are without a deductible. It covers mental health, drugs, maternity, anything I can think of."

If he buys on the exchange, Laszewski found, he'll have to pay a 66 percent higher premium for reduced benefits.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton has drafted a "Keep Your Health Plan Act" to save people such as Stokes and Laszewski.

I asked Laszewski what he thought of the Upton bill. "This makes sense, given all of the Obamacare government delays," he replied. He recognizes the downsides: "Will the insurance companies be expected to take all of the sick people with no expectation they will get the healthy people to pay the bills? Will the sick be able to sign up at will while the healthy sit it out?"

"From a political standpoint, it looks like a reasonable compromise," reasoned Joshua Archambault, health policy director for the Pioneer Institute. "From a policy standpoint, it could put the insurers in a very tough spot." Insurers based their new premiums on the expectation that they'd enroll healthy consumers who cannot keep their old plans.

"If we can get a delay, we should delay it," argues Lanhee Chen, a Hoover Institution fellow and former policy adviser to Mitt Romney.

Chen can think of modest fixes -- such as adjusting subsidies to reflect the cost of living -- but sees dicey politics for Republicans who suggest them: "It's just politically so hard because then you get accused of being sympathetic to the law."

Because Obamacare is going to start Jan. 1, I'd like to see a Republicans-to-the-rescue plan. Instead, the R's are going for the cheap-and-easy moment -- for example, Upton's two-page bill that somehow expects insurers to play along.

Maybe Republicans don't think it's in their interest to fix the Affordable Care Act. Or maybe there's no point in reviving the canary in the coal mine. Most likely, like the Democrats who wrote it, the Republicans have no idea how to fix Obamacare.

Honor Killing Ads Are Honor-Killed

             Honor Killing Ads Are Honor-Killed
Honour Killings SIOA Edmonton
“Dishonourable ads pulled” Edmonton Sun
“ETS pulls controversial ‘Honour Killings’ advertisements CBC
“Controversial ads on Edmonton Transit Service buses will be removed” CTV News
“ETS removing ‘racist’ honour-killing ad” Edmonton Journal
Now helping Muslim girls is “racist”: Edmonton Transit has caved in to Islamic supremacist demands and taken down our AFDI bus ads offering help to Muslim girls living in fear of honor killing.
The enemedia is calling our ads “dishonorable” and, above all, “controversial.” It’s “dishonorable” and “controversial” to save lives? Under the Sharia it is. And so in Edmonton, Muslim Councillor Amarjeet Sohi ordered officials to take down the signs, immediately.

Yet vicious blood libels against Israel are OK, and are running on transit systems across Canada.
Apparently Muslims complained about our ads. Why?

Is this how the Canadian Muslim community responds to the desperate circumstances of Muslim girls living in devout Muslim homes? They deny, obfuscate and dissemble. The Muslim community protects the religious honor code, while smearing and libeling the truth tellers coming to the aid of these girls as “racists.”

Honor killing is a grim reality that is largely ignored, and girls are suffering as a result. 

Muslim fathers kill their daughters for real or imagined sexual indiscretions that have supposedly dishonored the family. Nothing is done because political correctness prevents us from speaking about the problem honestly. Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide, and Islamic law stipulates no penalty for a parent who kills his child.

These girls need and deserve protection.

AFDI’s new honor killing awareness campaign was designed to help young girls living in fear of the Islamic honor code.

We are not giving up. We are going to challenge their decision in Edmonton, and run the ads elsewhere in Canada. The fact that Islamic supremacist groups are so threatened by these ads shows how desperately they are needed. Clearly we struck a nerve: these Muslim groups don’t want people speaking out against honor killing, and so we have to speak out louder than ever.

Please help us. We have to mount a legal challenge in Edmonton, as well as run the ads elsewhere in Canada. We can’t do it without your help. Remember: what happens in Canada will soon enough happen in the U.S.: Canada is just farther down the same road we are on, the road of appeasement and capitulation to Islamic supremacists.

We have to make a stand. Please donate via Paypal to

The American Freedom Defense Initiative is a 501c3 organization, and your contribution is tax-deductible. Go here: HELP FUND THE FIGHT- click here!
Contribute using - send your donation to
Or send your tax deductible contribution to:
Att: Pamela Geller
1040 1st Ave
NY NY 10022

NBC/WSJ Poll: Obama Approval Rating at All-Time Low
By Greg Richter
Image: NBC/WSJ Poll: Obama Approval Rating at All-Time Low
Only 42 percent approve of Obama's job performance, according the poll. That's down 5 points from early October. And 51 percent disapprove of his performance, which is tied for his all-time high disapproval.

And for the first time in the poll's history, Obama's personal approval ratings were lower than his disapproval ratings. The poll showed that 41 percent approve of him on a personal level and 45 percent disapprove.

"Personally and politically, the public's assessment is two thumbs down," Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart told NBC. Hart and Republican pollster Bill McInturff conducted the survey.

The pollsters told NBC that no single issue is responsible for the declines. Rather, a combination of the NSA spying scandal, questions over his "red line" comment on attacking Syria, the government shutdown, and problems with the Obamacare website rollout all played a roll.

In fact, the poll showed the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, also slipping in approval along with the Republican Party and Congress as a whole.

Thirty-seven percent now view the healthcare law as a good idea, with 47 percent opposing it. The previous poll showed 38 percent in favor and 43 against.

The White House and congressional Democrats had been touting the law's growing popularity as critics blasted the troubled rollout.

But in a separate question, 40 percent say they are now less confident about Obamacare after learning more about it. Only 9 percent are more confident. Exactly half said there has been no change in their thinking.

The full poll can be read here

In United States v Bond, The Supreme Court Could Be Ruling On The Safety Of All American Rights

by / Personal Liberty Digest

In <i>United States v Bond</i>, The Supreme Court Could Be Ruling On The Safety Of All American Rights
On more than one occasion President Barack Obama or a top Administration official has lamented that the Commander in Chief is not a king or a dictator and is, therefore, unable to ram his progressive policies down the greater American public’s collective throat as quickly as his liberal supporters would like. And on several occasions, the sole hurdle halting the President in his dash toward liberal utopia—or totalitarian hell, depending on whom you ask — has been a pesky 226-year-old document called the Constitution of the United States of America.

But the Obama Justice Department is working to change that.

Attorneys at the Justice Department are currently working to advance a Supreme Court argument that the Federal government should be allowed to invoke international treaties as legal basis for policies that government officials are unable to put into place because they conflict with the Nation’s Constitution.

The Supreme Court is slated to begin hearing oral arguments in United States v Bond early next month — a case in which the court will determine, according to SCOTUSblog:
(1)    Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on Federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the Federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult Constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v Holland.
In short, United States v Bond concerns a woman poisoning her husband’s mistress and, in doing so, violating the international ban on chemical weapons. Per the Constitution, the woman should be prosecuted at the State level — but the Federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

That is the same Act that Syrian Dictator Bashir al-Assad is a accused of violating and is the justification that many war-hungry politicians recently used as basis for a military attack on the Syrian government.

The Constitutional question is whether the Federal government can use treaties that Congress has ratified as Federal policy.

A 1920 Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v Holland upheld a treaty requiring the Federal government to enact laws regulating migratory birds after a similar statute was deemed unConstitutional in a lower court. At the time, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that treaty power extends beyond Congress’s regular lawmaking clout.

During a speech at the Heritage Foundation this week, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) explained the danger in accepting the Justice Department’s argument that international treaties and Federal policy are intertwined in domestic matters.

“If the broad interpretation of the Missouri v Holland snippet is accurate … you now have a roadmap – if you find the limitations on the Federal government’s authority irksome, any President has a simple path to get around it,” Cruz said. “Find any nation in the world, negotiate a treaty agreeing to do what you couldn’t do otherwise, and if the Senate ratifies it – and by the way that means you can cut the House of Representatives out of everything – then suddenly the Federal government has authority it didn’t have before.

“That is a radical interpretation of the treaty power. That is what is at issue in Bond: does the treaty power enable the Federal government to circumvent the structural limitations on the authority of the Federal government?” Cruz continued.

If that is the case, the Senator surmised that the President could even go so far as signing a treaty giving away any American rights protected by the Constitution.

“The proposition that the Treaty Clause is a trump card that defeats all of the remaining structural limitations on the Federal government is not a proposition that is logically defensible,” Cruz said.
Cultural psychology: How Islam managed to stay medieval for 1,400 years
From Jihad Watch

While almost all other cultures changed from primitive and medieval to democratic and egalitarian societies, one culture managed to keep even its most brutal and backward traditions and values for 1,400 years until today. Still today, the majority of Muslims prefer to live by values that can be traced all the way back to the desert tribes in which the founder of their religion lived. Getting to know life in Muslim families and societies is like traveling back in time to the time of Muhammad. Here one finds shocking laws and traditions that are obviously criminal and inhumane -- but for some reason accepted -- in our otherwise humanistic culture.

While non-Muslim scientists invent new fantastic medicines and technologies daily, discover the most amazing things about the universe, its building blocks and inhabitants, and Western voters and politicians have created the most humane, rich and free societies in world history, most Islamic countries are still amputating limbs for theft, stoning women and homosexuals, heavily inbred, denying people free speech and democracy, and contributing absolutely nothing when it comes to science, human rights or peace.

What are the cultural psychological factors making Islam able to stay medieval for 1,400 years?

One main factor is that while all other religions allow their followers to interpret their holy scriptures, thereby making them relatively adaptable to secular law, human rights and individual needs, Islam categorizes Muslims who do not take the Quran literally as apostates. And according to Islamic law, the sharia, apostasy is to be punished with death. The sharia thus makes it impossible for Islamic societies ever to develop into modern, humanistic civilisations.

The fact that Muslims deviating from the Quranic world view are to be punished has the direct consequence that scientific facts conflicting with the naive and childish world view held in pre-Enlightenment cultures are suppressed. Together with massive inbreeding -- 70 percent of Pakistanis, 45 percent of Arabs and at least 30 percent of Turks are from first cousin-marriages (often through many generations) -- this has resulted in the embarrassing fact that the Muslim world produces only one tenth of the world average when it comes to scientific research, and are dramatically under-represented among Nobel Prize winners. Fewer books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year.

Within Islam, faith and tradition is obviously valued far, far more than inventions and discoveries that would ease suffering and lead to a more reasonable understanding of the complexity of the universe and the potential of its inhabitants.

Child rearing
Another powerful defence mechanism within Islamic culture is found within Muslim child rearing. A very real threat of violence and even death is over every Muslim child's head, should he or she decide to choose another life style than that of its parents. Even if the parents allow their child to choose his or her own religion -- or none at all -- other Muslims are dedicating their lives to kill them. Together with the wide use of violence and even torture within Muslim families, the horrific amount of daily family executions of Muslim youth, this is enough to keep the vast majority from even considering escaping the way of the sharia. The Quran's and the Hadiths' many promises of hellfire to those who go against Muhammad's orders and example scares many from leaving the culture that brings them so much suffering. I clearly remember how several Muslim inmates at the prison I was working in as a psychologist expressed what seemed to be compassion, when I told them that I do not believe in Allah.

In order further to make sure that the children grow up to follow the same patterns as their family, many of them are subjected to mind-numbing repetitions of Islam's exceedingly violent scriptures, making many of them ticking time bombs where ever they live.

Muhammad's teaching that Muslim females can only marry Muslim males -- often within their own bloodline -- further bolster the culture of his followers against outside influence. The fact that the wives are kept like slaves in the way that they can only divorce if they are set free by an Islamic authority, keeps them from escaping the religion and and very often violent husbands, that leaves them with so few freedoms and rights. Should they chose to run away or divorce, they will in most case be cut off by their family, the often violent father is entitled to the children, and because they are categorized as outcasts and have had no or very little right to educate themselves, the possibility to sustain themselves is strongly limited. On top of that, many will live with a death sentence over their head for the rest of their lives for having insulted the family's honor.

Almost all Muslim women are thus threatened or even forced to fulfill their responsibility of continuing and passing on the Islamic culture, including its many misogynistic aspects. And the marriage rules within Islam makes sure that non-Muslim influence is not invited into the family.

View on non-Muslims
One basic principle within Islam is hating and harming non-Muslims. The Islamic scriptures are full of dehumanizing propaganda against us, and contain dozens of orders for Muslims to suppress, harm and kill atheists and followers of all other religions. The devaluation and demonizing of non-Muslims can easily be compared to the propaganda spread about the enemy by governments in wartime in order remove their soldiers' psychological hindrances that would otherwise keep them from attacking the opponent. Not surprisingly, Muslims are not allowed to take non-Muslims as friends.

Thus keeping a mental and physical distance to people from other cultures, Islam prevents its followers from being influenced and inspired by our less barbaric values.

Ethnic pride
Another cultural psychological factor enabling Islamic culture to remain unchanged in a globalised world with all its possibilities concerns Muslims' ethnic pride. No matter how ridiculous or embarrassing it may seem to the outsider, most Muslims are proud of being Muslim and a follower of Islam. According to Islam they are destined to dominate the rest of us, and we are so bad that we deserve the eternal fire. Working as a psychologist in prison, I heard how the Muslim inmates talk about their non-Muslim victims -- and their victims were always non-Muslims, unless it concerned women or rival gangs -- and I have no doubt that there exists a severe and widespread racism against non-Muslims among Muslims.

The cultural osmosis
Islamic culture thus has several defence mechanisms that prevents it and its followers from being influenced by non-Muslim values. At the same time, Westerners expressing pride in our country, culture or faith are immediately branded as racists, nationalistic or intolerant.

At the same time, we in the West have a longstanding tradition of tolerance and openness, together with the multicultural agenda pushed by the Left, the Media, EU and UN. The cultural osmosis can therefore go only one way: Islam stays where it is, while it drags the West back into medieval darkness, with its limitation of free speech and pre-enlightenment-style acceptance of religious dogmas and sensitivities.
Happy Halloween to all my blog don't eat too much candy corn...LOL

Sebelius’ for the camera 'dog and pony' show 
By: Diane Sori

“Don’t do this to me,” said Kathleen Sebelius when she thought she was off-mike…how about ‘don’t do this (ObamaCare) to ‘We the People.’

And so the hearings on the in-trouble ObamaCare website began, as noticeably nervous, fidgety, and obviously NOT wanting to be there, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius yesterday testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee…the very Committee holding hearings as to the cause and effect of the troubled debut of ObamaCare’s official health care website,

In a carefully orchestrated cacophony of lies, innuendos, and evasiveness fed into by the Democratic party loyalists in attendance…loyalists whose job was to heap praise on this monstrosity of a health care act NO matter what…Sebelius took an oath to tell the truth…the whole truth…and NOTHING but the truth...which of course we all know she did NOT do as she must cover herself (and of course cover for Obama) and her ineptitude as calls for her resignation continue to grow.

Starting off with being asked for the exact numbers of enrollment in the marketplace, Sebelius insisted accurate numbers would not be available until mid-November.

“The numbers that we have now just aren’t reliable. We want to be able to present accurate data,” she croaked…more like we need time to fix and adjust the numbers to meet our agenda…and down it went from there.

Trying to deflect blame off Barack HUSSEIN Obama…actually being his human shield of the kind all good muslims use…and his outright LYING to the American people about their being able to keep their current health plans…“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what"…and despite the 2 million cancellation notices that have already been sent out…with more on the way…Sebelius had the audacity to claim that the Obama White House has kept its promises to the American people.

I don’t think this woman is living on the same planet as the rest of us because what doesn’t she get about 2 million policies to date being cancelled solely because of ObamaCare. And Sebelius even had the gall to claim that it was the insurance companies altering their ‘inadequate’ plans in order to conform with Obamacare as the reason for the cancellations, that insurance companies routinely alter coverage in the individual marketplace, and that people on these plans often hold them for less than a year.

NO…I do NOT think so as the insurance companies are being forced to cancel both long and short-term policy holders because they CANNOT afford to alter their ‘adequate’ plans…plans people are happy with…to add on all the lunacy that is part and parcel of ObamaCare. And it is ObamaCare that drove these cancellations because ObamaCare’s very goal is to drive people into the exchanges, for that is the only way possible for Obama to monetarily sustain the health care system…a system that would collapse under its own weight if private insurance was allowed to stay.

Reading off a prepared statement…and showing NO visible signs of remorse at all…Sebelius said that she regretted that perusing has been a “miserably frustrating experience” for many, yet she still continued to bloviate that Obamacare and its website have been working well for millions of Americans, albeit slower than she would have liked. What I’d like to know is who those millions of Americans are as the reality is that most of the few who have been able to sign onto the website have NOT signed up for the ObamaCare exchanges but have signed up for Medicaid… further taxing the already overloaded health care system for poorer and disabled Americans.

And the blame game continued on as Kathleen Sebelius placed blame on everybody for the website’s failures but on its rightful owner…as in her boss Barack HUSSEIN Obama….and doing so with the same smug look on her face that we see time and again on Obama’s face as he blames everybody but himself when anything goes wrong. Trying to dump the website’s problems in the lap of contractor Verizon…blaming Verizon for the server failures while at the same time claiming the server and the site have NEVER crashed…yet another LIE was exposed for early yesterday morning the site went down again and stayed down the entire time she was testifying …in fact it went down for the third time in as many days…showing just how incompetent Kathleen Sebelius is in doing the job she was appointed to do.

And in Sebelius’ defending of ObamaCare…her own law per se…a law she obviously does NOT understand because when asked if she would sign on to one of the ObamaCare exchanges her reply was that it would be illegal for her to do so. And we could see her nose visibly growing as she took off and put on her glasses for the umpteenth time...for that’s one big LIE…a LIE on the same scope as Obama’s ‘you can keep your health insurance’ LIE. And while it’s NOT illegal for her to sign on her NOT signing on borders on the criminal…to me at least…because what’s good for us common folks should damn well be just as good for those like her who sit in their ivory towers dictating to the rest of us what we can and cannot do.

Bottom line...while this hearing was really just a ‘dog and pony show’ done solely for the cameras, Sebelius and her Democratic cohorts continue to try and herald ObamaCare’s supposed pluses…but truth be told ObamaCare is actually worse than any form of socialized medicine in existence today, because ObamaCare was designing right from the get-go to be a total and complete dismantling our America’s medical system. ObamaCare is NOT about better medicine…is NOT about better medical care…reducing insurance costs…or even about covering the previously uninsured…but is about ObamaCare and its so-called ‘glitches’ being just a diversion so that when it dies after a very theatrical played for maximum affect death…Barack HUSSEIN Obama can then implement what was his always wanted goal…to implement a single payer system of health care…meaning Medicaid for everyone…and he could care less that it will be we taxpayers who will shoulder the burden of its cost.

And while Kathleen Sebelius told the Committee, “Let me say directly to these Americans: You deserve better. I apologize. I’m accountable to you for fixing these problems…Hold me accountable for the debacle. I’m responsible,” the truth is that as president the blame is the ultimate responsibility of Barack HUSSEIN Obama to take and no one else…and a real man and real president would do just that.