Tuesday, December 31, 2013

GOP Must Strike While Obamacare Iron Is Hot  
David Limbaugh / Townhall Columnist

When it comes to health care, Republicans need to strike while the iron is hot, and it is white-hot now -- and will probably get worse -- because of the Obamacare disaster. 

The nation's health insurance rolls are hemorrhaging with Obamacare-forced cancellations, and new sign-ups are dreadfully slow -- and not just because of the disgraceful website glitches.

People don't want what Obama's offering, er, mandating, and they're not buying what he's selling (at gunpoint).

On Sunday morning, the White House quietly issued a statement revealing that only 1.1 million people have signed up for Obamacare on the federal website. An additional 1 million have signed up on states' websites, but even adding these enrollees, the administration is woefully short of its stated goal of 3.3 million enrollments by Dec. 31 and has less than a third of its targeted 7 million number by March 31. But that's just the good news.

We don't even have information -- because the government won't provide it -- on how many of the allegedly 1.1 million new federal enrollees are actually assured of coverage. All we know is that these people have selected the plans they want on the website; we don't know whether they've paid for them or whether the insurance companies have accepted them for coverage.

The administration's obscure Sunday statement provided no information as to the demographics and income levels of those enrollees. The financial feasibility of Obamacare depends on the participation of the "young invincibles" -- young, healthy people whom this despotic government will soak for premiums to subsidize the sick and elderly. The administration is shrewdly guarding this data because it knows it can't afford more bad news, and these skewed sign-up patterns would mean that premiums would likely jump again in 2014.

The administration also conspicuously failed to mention that Obamacare forced cancellation of the plans of about 5 million people, which leaves a net loss of some 3 million insured. Reportedly, close to 2 million others signed up for Medicaid coverage, but that will just further tax that underfunded system and the federal budget and will do nothing to help fund the Obamacare mandated plans.

It bears repeating that these forced cancellations were no accident. Nor were they mere collateral damage the administration couldn't avoid en route to its socialized medicine utopia. They were deviously planned by the administration because they were necessary for Obamacare's numbers to work.

Despite Obama's repeated lies, the cancellations were premeditated in order to compel people to obtain more expensive plans through the federal website -- to cover things they aren't even at risk for -- and for the federal government to be able to use the premium windfalls to subsidize other people's health insurance costs. Obamacare was never about improving access to health care, reducing health care costs or improving the quality of care. It was an elaborate government-imposed Ponzi scheme for wealth redistribution and to establish another behemoth federal infrastructure for the government to control never-before-imagined aspects of our everyday lives.

As 2014 unfolds, expect further bad news from Obamacare as the other shoe drops on employer-provided plans.

In the midst of this White House news dump, Nero fiddles; Obama is enjoying another extended vacation and playing golf to his heart's delight. Even his once-fawning liberal press acknowledged that he seemed to be without energy and disengaged as he was leaving for vacation.

By all accounts and from all quarters, from former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs to former knee-tingler Chris Matthews, Obama had his worst year in 2013 -- and that's saying something. His approval ratings continue to hang at all-time lows. Support for Obamacare has reached a record low. A new CNN poll shows that Obama is even losing his own base over Obamacare. Democratic senators are complaining that Obama's personality makes it difficult to work with him. Others, along with Democratic congressmen, want to distance themselves from him as the 2014 elections approach.

When I said Republicans should strike while the iron is hot, I meant they need to hammer Obama daily for the damage he's causing to the American people on Obamacare alone. They need to feed Americans the facts as relentlessly as Obama has campaigned to force-feed us this nightmare.

And they need to immediately pass in the House, with great fanfare, a comprehensive health care reform bill containing the myriad market-based reforms they've proposed over the past few years -- from tort reform to ending discriminatory tax treatment for employer-provided plans to expanding health savings accounts to reducing government mandates to ending prohibition on consumers crossing state lines to buy insurance to supporting retail health clinics to providing vouchers for the working poor and chronically uninsured.

Passing such a bill would not keep Obama from lying that Republicans have no alternative plan, but it would give them something tangible with which to counter and showcase his lie.

Republicans have much work to do. We are in a war for the survival of the country as we know it, and in order to save it, we need to fight with the same relentless intensity as Obama and his forces are fighting to destroy it.

As Democrats survey a troubled 2014 political landscape, it's easy to forget how optimistic they seemed less than a year ago.

 "I would expect that Nancy Pelosi is going to be speaker again pretty soon," President Obama told cheering House Democrats at a party retreat last February.

In the rosy scenario that took hold in some Democratic circles, the party was positioned to recapture the House in 2014 and maintain control of the Senate, allowing Obama to defy the history of second-term presidential decline. Great successes and good years lay ahead.

Had Democrats forgotten Obamacare, the law they passed in 2010 that was scheduled to take effect in 2014? It almost seemed as if they had.

Obama and his allies put off the arrival of Obamacare until after the president faced re-election in 2012. His administration also delayed releasing key rules regarding the law until after the election for fear of angering voters. But now they can't put it off any longer. 2014 will be the year Democrats pay for Obamacare.

When Obama spoke to the House retreat, polls consistently showed Democrats leading in the so-called "generic ballot" question, that is, whether voters will choose a Democratic or a Republican representative in the next election. Now, however, there's been a big swing away from Democrats and toward Republicans.

In addition, a new CNN poll found that 55 percent of voters surveyed said that when it comes to congressional races, they're more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes Obama than one who supports the president.

"Those kind of numbers spelled early trouble for the Democrats before the 1994 and 2010 midterms, and for the GOP before the 2006 elections," CNN polling director Keating Holland reported on the network's website.

Meanwhile, support for Obamacare, already low, could fall further as more middle-income Americans -- voters -- figure out that they are the ones who will be paying for the Democrats' national health care scheme.

In 2009 and 2010, Obama, Pelosi and their fellow Democrats sold Obamacare as a kind of miracle. It would give health insurance to 30 million previously uncovered people and cut the federal deficit by more than a trillion dollars at the same time. And the only taxes needed to pay for it all would fall on the very wealthy. It seemed impossible, but that's what they claimed.

Now, millions of middle-income Americans who probably felt safe from Obamacare's taxes are learning that they will pay for the program after all, in the form of higher premiums. Democrats constructed a system in which insurance companies would be forced to cover more people and then spread the cost around among those who had coverage all along, meaning many middle-income Americans will have to pay more for what they already had. Taxpayer-paid subsidies would go to lower-income Americans.

"The Affordable Care Act was not designed to reduce costs or, the law's name notwithstanding, to make health insurance coverage affordable for the vast majority of Americans," health care consultant Kip Piper told USA Today. "The law uses taxpayer dollars to lower costs for the low-income uninsured, but it also increases costs overall and shifts costs within the marketplace."

It was a clever strategy, allowing Democrats to sell their bill as a deficit cutter that wouldn't raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans. But the public had to find out eventually. "ACA taxes were imposed only on high-income people," the conservative writer David Frum noted recently in a series of tweets. "But large costs fall on the middle class, too, in the hidden, kludgy form of rate hikes. 'Obamacare is deficit neutral' wasn't technically a lie, but it was highly misleading. The middle class will pay and is paying."

Did most Americans understand that when Obamacare was passed and signed into law? Unlikely. But 2014 will be the year they find out.

And they are unlikely to be kind to the people who sold them that bill of goods. Democrats can comfort themselves by noting that the public disapproves of Republicans, too. But if Obamacare is a major political issue in November 2014 -- and indications are that it will be -- then Democrats will be the party that pays. And all their optimism of 2013 will seem like it was a long, long time ago.

Egypt arrests Al-Jazeera's TV crew for ties to Muslim Brotherhood

From JIhad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

aljazeera.jpgIf Al Jazeera in the U.S. had a pro-Brotherhood bias, who would notice? So does the rest of the mainstream media. "Egypt arrests Al-Jazeera TV's 4-member crew," from the Associated Press, December 30 (thanks to Jayke):
CAIRO (AP) -- Egypt's Interior Ministry says security forces have arrested journalists working for the Qatari-based Al-Jazeera network over alleged links to the Muslim Brotherhood, the leading Islamist group that was last week branded as a "terrorist" organization. 
The network said Monday that four of its Cairo team - correspondent Peter Greste, producers Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, and cameraman Mohamed Fawzy - are in custody since Sunday night.
Al-Jazeera says it's demanding their immediate release.
The ministry says only two Al-Jazeera staff were arrested, an Australian journalist and a second person, a Brotherhood member. It says they were meeting at a five-star Cairo hotel that is used to "spread rumors harming national security."
Egypt's military-backed government has long accused Al-Jazeera of bias because Qatar is perceived to have supported the Brotherhood.

How To Create A Banana Republic Out Of A Once-Great Nation

How To Create A Banana Republic Out Of A Once-Great Nation
by   / Personal Liberty Digest

Altruism is a mask for deception. The fiat system promotes altruism with slogans like, “For the greater good,” “It’s for the children” and “Equality for all.”

Translated, this means, give of your substance so that we may all be equal.

Altruism is an attribute of the liberal mind. It is based on groupism, which is the concept of egalitarianism.

It is the opposite of individuality and responsibility. It is the basis upon which all redistributive schemes are launched.

The psychopaths walking the halls of power are about to employ it yet again. They want to divest people of their retirement funds in order to prop up the failing regime. They will do so by converting 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts to government debt. These discussions have been going on for several years.

There is also precedent for this confiscation scheme. It happened as recently as September in Poland.

What you will hear more and more of in the coming months are words like “savings inequality” and “racial inequality.” They will be used to condition simple minds to accept that they are responsible for funding the retirements of the “less fortunate.”

A report by the liberal think tank National Institute on Retirement Security notes that black and Latino households hold much less retirement savings than white households. Among near-retirees, the per-household average savings balance for blacks, Latinos and Asians is $30,000; whites average $120,000 in savings.

I have already reported to you that the Washington, D.C., elites are eying your retirement funds and the discussions are becoming more open. President Barack Obama proposed “automatic IRAs” in his 2013 budget. These would have required business to contribute 3 percent of an employee’s salary to private companies selected by the government in order to fund a pension.

So how do you turn a once-great nation into a banana republic? First, you divide the people against themselves by slowly changing their psyche to collectivism and altruism. Then morality becomes quicksand, and reality becomes spurious and frivolous.

Collectivism and altruism diminish individualism and transforms the mind. Adolf Hitler used this concept to manipulate the German people into false patriotism and self-sacrifice. Now, it’s déjà vu all over again.

Can we be slaves and give our total allegiance to the state without being conscious of it? Can we support the state without awareness? Yes. And how do we do it? The answer is that we work for depreciating currency. We “save” in depreciating currency. We buy life insurance in depreciating currency. And we leave our estates in depreciating currency.

Collectivism and altruism are the rot of morality and individualism. The people evolve into nothing more than an expression of the State.
Back to the YouTube video we go...back to covering up for Hillary 
By: Diane Sori

"The attack was led ... by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam." - The New York Times

Well it's started.  Laying the groundwork for a Hillary run in 2016, the New York Times has come out with a farce of an article...actually a six-part series about the attack on Benghazi which leads back to that ridiculous claim that a YouTube video about mohamed was the cause of it all.

Trying to defect all blame for Bengahzi away from Hillary...to actually try and exonerate her...good leftist newspaper that they are...the New York Times this past Saturday started running the series 'A Deadly Mix In Benghazi' by David Kirkpatrick. This series claims there is NO evidence whatsoever to prove that al-Qaeda was involved in the Benghazi attack, and that the attack was carried out solely by local militant islamist groups who were furious over the American-produced video the 'Innocence of Muslims' that slammed islam and the (supposed) prophet mohamed.

And this series uses quotes from 'anonymous' sources...Libyans who claimed they were in Benghazi and who claimed to have direct knowledge of the attack...as their 'supposed' credible sources. Anonymous sources who in their very anonymity means they are NOT credible at all.

Hate to tell The New York Times but this was a pre-planned well orchestrated attack by al-Qaeda and done in conjunction with the al-Qaeda aligned Muslim Brotherhood. Even Muslim Brotherhood members who were directly connected to ousted US educated, former professor at California State University (1982-1985) Muslim Brotherhood puppet President Mohamed Morsi, admitted to having had an operational role in the attack. And here's a little something our media has NOT reported on...the first two of Morsi's five children were born in the US and have US citizenship and passports they will NOT give up.

After being arrested at the scene, statements and confessions were taken from six members of one of the cells who took part in the attack and they admitted to being Egyptians connected to the al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Shariah. During interrogations these Egyptians, according to a US government verified Libyan intelligence document, “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi."

In fact there's even a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRgZ82OTRk) shot on a cell phone that shows a mob approaching the American compound while it was under siege, clearly showing some in the mob telling the terrorists in the dialect of Upper Egypt: “Mahadesh, mahadesh yermi, Dr. Morsi ba`atna” which translates to, “Don’t shoot, don’t shoot, Dr. Morsi sent us.”

By the way, the name 'Morsi' is Egyptian only and appears in NO other Arabic dialect.

Four Americans were murdered in the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic mission and CIA compound and to date still NO one at the top has been called to task. Some low-level minor State Department employees were slapped on the wrist but that's it. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walked away seemingly untouched even after saying about those killed at Benghazi, "What difference at this point does it make" when questioned by Congress. Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who watched them die in real time and who, as Commander-in-Chief, could have been the only one to tell rescuers to 'stand down,' jetted off the next morning to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and I can imagine him laughing that he pulled off another one. But isn't it odd that all the generals, admirals, and high-ranking officers who knew the truth about the attack have either 'suddenly' retired early or been relieved of their commands.

And all this because of a poorly crafted video...NO...I do NOT think so.

Claiming that everyone is confusing local Libyan extremist groups like Ansar al-Shariah (Supporters of Islamic Law) for al-Qaeda’s world-wide terrorist network, the New York Times series states that Ansar al-Shariah and other local islamic militia groups were already planning an attack when the video just happened to be released adding the much needed final bit of fuel to the fire...a video that stirred up the restless already out for blood who now wanted the time frame for the attack moved up...a video that became the perfect foil for Obama's much needed cover for the truth.

Remember, with the Benghazi attack occurring in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama knew this attack could seriously damage his chances of winning re-election if the truth were ever to come out that Ambassador Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and ex-Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty died in a carefully planned attack by al-Qaeda to mark the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and that he knew it was going to happen and did NOTHING to stop it or to try and rescue those in danger. So instead Obama and his minions concocting and spread the YouTube story to cover up al-Qaeda’s role to avoid the sure to come discrediting of Obama's bloviations that al-Qaeda had been decimated and was on the run, all because he had single-handily (said with much sarcasm) taken out Osama bin Laden.

And of course the video was used to deflect any and all blame away from Hillary Clinton...the woman the media had already deemed to be the next in line for the presidency...never mind that she time and again willfully ignored Ambassador Stevens' many pleas for help.

Willfully ignoring those pleas for help because the most probable scenario...a scenario I have said since day one and still stand by...is that Benghazi was an Obama funded and orchestrated ILLEGAL gun and weapons running operation to the al-Qaeda backed Syrian rebels that Ambassador Stevens found out about and was going to blow the whistle on. And I bet Hillary knew it all...and knowing that Hillary had sympathy towards the Muslim Brotherhood (due to her close friendship with her then State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin) she probably even condoned the gun and weapons running.

It's pretty obvious that Ambassador Stevens had to be silenced one way or another (Smith, Woods, and Doherty were considered 'collateral damage') and both Obama and Hillary need this truth hidden at all costs...especially Hillary if she is going to run in 2016. And it's the truth that many in Congress also know but are just too afraid to admit to or to seriously act upon beyond the 'dog and pony show' Congressional Benghazi hearings that went nowhere.

And so the true objectives of this New York Times series...especially coming out now while speculation about a Hillary run are all over the media and the internet...are clearly NOT to get to the truth about Benghazi, but are about trying to diffuse the right from being able to use Benghazi against Hillary. And to that I say, sorry but it will indeed be used every chance we get NOT only to damage and diffuse her campaign but also to try and prevent Hillary from running in the first place for America has had quite enough with Barack HUSSEIN Obama...America does NOT need his socialist agenda continued under a Hillary Clinton presidency... period.