Conservative Political Views


Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber: We Lied and Counted on the Stupidity of the American VoterNovember 10, 2014


RUSH: Have you seen or heard the audio snippet of the actual author of Obamacare?  His name is Jonathan Gruber.  He is a professor at MIT, a professor of economics.

He wrote both Romneycare and he wrote Obamacare.  “Oh, yeah, he’s a brilliant, smart guy! Oh, totally smart guy.”  Almost a year ago, in October of 2013, he was in Philadelphia speaking at the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference, and he spoke about Obamacare and how and what they had to do to make it a reality.

I want you to listen to how this prominent Democrat, prominent leftist professor of economics at MIT addresses you and references you and speaks of you, the American people, and — be it in Obamacare or anything else they want done — what they have to do in order to get their agenda forward.

Clink on link or Copy and Paste VIDEO:

GRUBER:  This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.  If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies, okay?  So it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are gonna pay in… If you made it explicit the healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay?  Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.  And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.

RUSH:  In other words, they had to lie to you, and they relied on your stupidity. They counted on your stupidity to believe their lies such as, “You get to keep your doctor and you get to keep your health insurance plan,” such as, “Your premiums are gonna come down,” such as, “No they’re not taxes! There’s no way they’re taxes. No, no, no. And you’re gonna get subsidies if you can’t afford it, so don’t sweat it.  Everything’s gonna be fine.”

The media carried the lie forward, and it was all based on their belief that you are too stupid to figure out what they’re doing.  All they had to do was find a way to service your ignorance and your stupidity, and they could create support for the bill.  But do you know what happened?  There has never been majority support for this bill.  That’s the one thing you must never lose sight of here. Don’t ever forget: They never did fool a majority of the American people.

This bill was rammed down the throats of the people this country on, what, Christmas Eve in 2010, and there wasn’t one Republican vote in it. There never has been a Republican vote in favor of this.  How many times…?  I love this because it’s validation of what I’ve always known and what I’ve always said.  They mask, they camouflage, they don’t dare admit what they really intend to do; you’d never support it.  And they have contempt for the average American citizen.

The average American citizen is a dolt. “The stupidity of the American voter.” I’ll tell you where this has led.  The Supreme Court’s gonna hear another phase of Obamacare, and that’s about the subsidies, and depending how this one goes… I don’t want to make any predictions, because the slam-dunk prediction on the first case on Obamacare, we were all wrong, because the Supreme Court chief justice decided to write the law himself in order avoid declaring it unconstitutional.

He thought, “Nah, I can’t do that! It’s the will of Congress. We can’t go up against will of the people and declare it unconstitutional.”  So he rewrote the law to make it palatable. So anything’s possible here.  But essentially a bunch of people have gotten subsidies that do not deserve them, that do not qualify for them.  The only people who get subsidies are from the states, state exchanges, and most states did not set up an exchange.

Which means the federal government came in and, essentially, in violation of Obamacare, set up their own exchange and provided their own subsidies, which is not legal.  And the Supreme Court decided to hear this case even though there hasn’t been any disagreement yet at the appellate level. They generally wait for that before taking a case, but they took this one right away, and that’s why people go, “Well, maybe — maybe — they’re eager to fix their first mistake.”

It’s dangerous to think that way.

But we’ve got violations of the law all over the place in this administration, and this one’s gonna go right back up to the Supreme Court.


RUSH:  “Lack of transparency” was the key because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed Obamacare.  That’s Jonathan Gruber. Once again, he’s an economics professor at MIT, and he said, “Lack of transparency,” meaning honesty. Lack of honesty was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because the stupidity of the American voter would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

There you go, America.

That is what the Democrat Party thinks of you.

This is not something new.  He said this a year ago at a conference of economists, but it’s not new.  This is how the Democrat Party thinks of most people, and it’s not hard to believe.  They think most people are incapable of taking care of themselves, for example. Particularly women.  They think most people are incompetent and will make the wrong decisions if living a life of self-reliance.

The Democrat Party thinks everybody’s a victim, primarily of America or of the Republican Party or of conservatives.  They don’t dare be honest with you about what they believe.  They know you wouldn’t vote for it, and that’s why you’re stupid.  You don’t have the intelligence to see the brilliance of their ideas.  What you have is the common sense to know they’re not good.

So this arrogant condescension is a commonplace point of view that is held by practical everybody, particularly at the top ranks of the Democrat Party.  “The bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO didn’t score the mandate as taxes.

“If it was taxes, it would kill it,” meaning: You don’t want to pay higher taxes. Even though you’re paying higher premiums, higher everything, they had to lie to you about that, otherwise you would have resoundingly opposed it and it wouldn’t have happened.

They couldn’t dare be honest with you.

They still can’t.


RUSH:  Not only were the American people not fooled by the Democrat Party’s lies on Obamacare — again, it has never had majority support.  Just like amnesty for illegals has not had majority support.  Much of which this administration has done has been done against the will of the American people.  The American people didn’t vote for what has happened in so many things.  The Democrat Party knew it.  The Democrat Party knows they would be rejected.  They have been rejected in two elections, the 2010 midterms and 2014 midterms.

I don’t think people realize just how bad this is for the Democrat Party.  It’s more than a wipeout, and it’s so well deserved. I can’t even begin to tell you. This has been so long in coming.  This is a party which has knowingly lied to the American people, which has constantly held a majority of the American people in contempt as epitomized by Jonathan Gruber’s statement that they relied on the stupidity of the American voter — well, they had to do what they did because of the stupidity of the American voter.  They had to lie about what was in Obamacare.

originalYeah, they said it was under trillion dollars. The trillion-dollar figure was magical ’cause that’s what the Iraq war cost, and Obama was running around saying it’s no expense whatsoever, we’re simply gonna replace the… (interruption)  Exactly right.  Anybody and everybody listening to this program knew exactly what Obamacare was all about, but not just here.  Everybody had the — well, not everybody, but, I mean, there were a lot of media outlets that had the truth about this bill from the get-go and the philosophy that was serving as its foundation.  This bill never fooled a majority of the American people.  And, you know what?  This goes back to Hillarycare.

Hillarycare was never, ever supported by a majority Americans.  It never had a prayer.  The Democrat Party literally had to lie and literally ram this down the throats of this country because the American people didn’t want it.  And the only way they could do it was to lie.  That’s what lack of transparency means when this Gruber guy says that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because the stupidity of the American voter would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

Grab sound bite 20 again.  Listen to it again in his own words, Jonathan Gruber, MIT economics professor in Philadelphia, 24th annual Health Economics Conference.

GRUBER:  This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.  If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies, okay?  So it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are gonna pay in… If you made it explicit the healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay?  Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.  And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.

He had one more sentence which followed this.  He said, “Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”  So they had to lie.  That’s what lack of transparency means.  Lack of openness.  Lack of honesty.  They had to hide from you what was really in it.  And of course these mandates are taxes, and they’re unconstitutional, and that’s what the Supreme Court punted on when they heard the case.  They are taxes, and they’re taxes that the federal government’s not allowed to levy.

All of that’s beside the point.  The American people never supported it.  But even today that doesn’t matter.  So it’s an extremely teachable moment.  And now the law will end up back at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the subsidies that the Regime is passing out that probably are illegal.  But that won’t be known until the court actually rules on this.  Let me grab a call about this.  We’ve got Pete in Altoona, Pennsylvania.  Hey, Pete.  I’m glad you called, and welcome to the program.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi.  My quick question for you is why do you think that this professor would say about this bill right now, why do you think that he would say he couldn’t be transparent and they had to be misleading about the bill now, after Republicans have taken majority in Congress and the House?

RUSH:  Well, he said it a year ago.

CALLER:  Oh, I’m sorry.

RUSH:  He said it a year ago and the reason he said it was arrogance.  He’s speaking to some like-minded economists at a conference of economists, the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference.  So he was speaking to some like-minded people.  This is on YouTube, by the way, one of these uncovered videos.  The news media didn’t cover this.  The Drive-By Media didn’t get this.  This is a YouTube video from within the conference.  This hasn’t made the mainstream media, folks.

originalHe thought he was speaking to some like-minded people who were as smart as he and held the same basic opinion, low opinion of the American people, and he was relating to them.  He was giving them the inside scoop.  This is not a faux pas.  He wasn’t misspeaking.  You have to understand the arrogance these people walk around with and the conceit that they have.  And, by the way, a year ago, the Supreme Court’s ruled, this guy thinks it’s home free now. It doesn’t matter what we say, they can’t stop it, they can’t do anything about it now.  He wasn’t thinking about it being an election — and in fact it wasn’t a factor in the election.  We hear about this after.

So it’s just arrogance and conceit, and the fact that he thought he was in a room with a bunch of like-minded people, that he could be open and honest about what they had to do.  And, by the way, I’m gonna add to it.  I’m sure that he thought he was being very brilliant.  I mean, he was sharing with his audience what has to be done to make progressive things happen in this country.  You’ve got to lie to the American people.  “We can’t count on their intelligence to understand us.  We cannot rely, because they do not have enough intelligence to keep up with us and to know how much wonderful that we have planned for them, so we have to lie to them.”

The real thing that offends them is that they even have to subject themselves to elections or their ideas even get put up to a vote.  Obama has presided over two devastating defeats for the Democrat Party.


November 12, 2014 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



185 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

(202) 224-5922


Report No. 4:
The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power
By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights

Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat.

The President’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” America’s Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. No one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying, and waiving portions of the laws that he is charged to enforce. When President Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In the more than two centuries of our nation’s history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking others to do the same.

For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.



Governing by Executive Fiat

1.  Disregarded 1996 welfare reform law in granting broad work waivers for work requirements of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).1

2.  Implemented portions of the DREAM Act, which Congress rejected, by executive action.2

3.  Ended some terror asylum restrictions, by allowing asylum for people who provided only “insignificant” or “limited” material support of terrorists.3

4.  Allowed immigrants in the U.S. illegally, who are relatives of military troops and veterans, to stay in the country and get legal status.

5.  Extended federal marriage benefits by recognizing, under federal law, same-sex marriages created in a state that allows same-sex marriage even if the couple is living in a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

6.  Recognized same-sex marriage in Utah, even though the Supreme Court stayed the court order recognizing same-sex marriage in Utah and Utah said it would not recognize same- sex marriages performed before the stay.

7.  Refused to prosecute violation of drug laws with certain mandatory minimums.

8.  Issued signing statements, refusing to enforce parts of congressional-enacted statutes.

9.  Illegally refused to act on Yucca Mountain’s application to become a nuclear waste repository.


1 Caroline May, Obama administration ‘guts’ welfare reform with new HHS rule, Daily Caller, Jul. 13, 2012.

2 Mark Krikorian, Today is A-Day, National Review Online, Aug. 15, 2012.
3 Reid J. Epstein, Obama administration ends some terror asylum restrictions, Politico, Feb. 5, 2014.
4 Julia Preston, Immigrants Closely Tied to Military Get Reprieve, N.Y. Times, Nov. 15, 2013.

5 Matt Apuzzo, More Federal Privileges to Extend to Same-Sex Couples, N.Y. Times, Feb. 8, 2014.

6 Charlie Savagejan, U.S. to Recognize Utah Gay Marriage Despite State Stance, N.Y. Times, Jan. 10, 2014.
7 Pete Williams & Michael O’Brien, Holder: ‘New Approach’ to reduce mandatory drug sentences, NBC News, Aug. 12, 2013.
8 Charlie Savage, Obama Takes New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws, N.Y. Times, Jan. 8, 2010.
9 Joel B. Pollak, Nuclear fallout: Yucca decision would affect immigration, obamacare, Breitbart, Aug. 14, 2013.


 National Security

  1. Falsely portrayed the Benghazi terrorist attack as a spontaneous protest against an anti- Muslim YouTube video,10 and then lied about the White House’s involvement.11

  2. Illegally revealed the existence of sealed indictments in the Benghazi investigation.12

  3. Failed to enforce the Magnitsky Act as required by law, by not adding Russian human rights abusers to a list of people not permitted to travel to or do business in the U.S.13

  4. Killed four Americans overseas in counterterrorism operations without judicial process.14

  5. Continued to give Egypt aid after the military took over its government, even though federal law prohibits aid to Egypt in the event of a coup.15


10 Bill Flax, Benghazi: Four Americans Died, Obama Lied, and the Press Complied, Forbes, Oct. 18, 2012.

11 Michael D. Shear, Email Suggests White House Strategy on Benghazi, N.Y. Times, Apr. 30, 2014.
12 Mike Levine, President Obama’s Surprise Revelation of Sealed Benghazi Indictment, ABC News, Aug. 9, 2013.

13 Obama’s Magnitsky Walkback, Wall St. J., Jan. 5, 2014.
14 Karen DeYoung & Peter Finn, U.S. acknowledges killing of four U.S. citizens in counterterrorism operations, Wash. Post, May 22, 2013.
15 White House says U.S. has not cut off aid to Egypt, Reuters, Aug. 20, 2013.




  1. Granted a “hardship” exemption from the individual mandate for people whose health plans were canceled because their plans weren’t Obamacare compliant.16

  2. Delayed the individual mandate for two years.17

  3. Allowed individuals to buy health insurance plans in 2014 that did not comply with Obamacare.18 Extended this delay until 2016—past the mid-term elections.19

  4. Extended the deadline to enroll in Obamacare.20

  5. Illegally granted businesses a waiver from Obamacare’s employer mandate.21 Twice.22

  6. Illegally continued the Obamacare employer contribution for congressional staffs.23

  7. Illegally delayed the Obamacare caps on out-of-pocket healthcare payments.24

  8. Illegally delayed Obamacare verification of eligibility for healthcare subsidies.25

  9. Illegally required people to violate their faith via the Obamacare contraception mandate.26

  10. As of May 2011, over 50% of Obamacare waiver beneficiaries were union members (who account for less than 12% of the American work force).27


16 Margaret Talev & Alex Wayne, Obama Lifts Health Mandate for Those With Canceled Plans,, Dec. 20, 2013.

17 ObamaCare’s Secret Mandate Exemption, Wall St. J., Mar. 11, 2014.

18 Stephanie Condon, Obama letting people keep canceled health plans for another year,, Nov. 14, 2013.

19 Louise Radnofsky, Obama Gives Health Plans Added Two-Year Reprieve, Wall St. J., Mar. 5, 2014.

20 David Martosko, Busted! After promising ‘no delay’ in final Obamacare sign-up deadline, Obama administration unveils new ‘honor system’ extension through mid-April, Daily Mail, March 25, 2014.

21 Sarah Kliff, White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015, Wash. Post, July 2, 2013.

22 Juliet Eilperin & Amy Goldstein, White House delays health insurance mandate for medium-seized employers until 2016, Wash. Post, Feb. 10, 2014.

23 Ezra Klein, In 2014, Congress gets Obamacare. Here’s how they’ll pay for it., Wash. Post, Aug. 1, 2013.

24 Avik Roy, Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015, Forbes, Aug. 13, 2013.

25 Avik Roy, Not Qualified for Obamacare’s Subsidies? Just lie – Govt. To Use ‘Honor System’ Without Verifying Your Eligibility, Forbes, July 6, 2013.

26 Joel Gehrke, Little Sisters of the Poor sue over Obamacare fines, contraception requirement, Wash. Examiner, Sept. 24, 2013.

27 Milton Wolf, Obamacare waiver corruption must stop, Wash. Times, May 20, 2011.




  1. Ordered Boeing to fire 1,000 employees in South Carolina and shut down a new factory because it was non-union.28

  2. Implemented a moratorium on offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill without statutory authority, and continued to enact new versions after federal courts repeatedly invalidated the moratorium.29

  3. Treated secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy.30

  4. Terminated the pensions of 20,000 non-union Delphi employees in the GM bankruptcy.31

  5. Had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws—but no charges were filed.32

  6. Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as “ammunition sales.”33


28 Steven Greenhouse, Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law, N.Y. Times, Apr. 20, 2011.
29 Frederic Frommer, Government takes third attempt at drilling moratorium, Associated Press, Jul. 13, 2010.

30 An offer you can’t refuse, The Economist, May 7, 2009.
31 Emails: Geithner, Treasury drove cutoff of nonunion Delphi workers’ pensions, Daily Caller, Aug. 7, 2012; Report: Obama administration played key role in GM Bankruptcy as pensions cut for salaried workers, not unionized ones, Associated Press, Aug 16, 2013.
32 Deborah Zabarenko, Gibson Guitar CEO slams U.S. raids as “overreach”, Reuters, Oct. 12, 2011.
33 Frank Keating, Justice Puts Banks in a Choke Hold, Wall St. J., Apr. 24, 2014.



Executive Nominees and Personnel

  1. Appointed czars to oversee federal policy specifically because czars do not require Senate confirmation, earning criticism from stalwart Democrats such as West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd35 and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.36
  2. As of January 2012, 36 of the President’s executive office staff owed $833,970 in back taxes.37
  3. Made illegal “recess” appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board when Congress wasn’t in recess.34 Ignored the rulings of three federal courts of appeals that held those nominations unconstitutional.
  4. As of 2011, 311,566 federal employees or retirees owed $3.5 billion in taxes.38

34 Timothy Noah, Cordray’s Recess Appointment Sure Doesn’t Look Constitutional to Me, New Republic, Jan. 4, 2012.
35 John Bresnahan, Byrd: Obama in power grab, Politico, Feb. 25, 2009.
36 Jordan Fabian, Feingold questions Obama ‘czars’, The Hill, Sept. 16, 2009.37 Andrew Malcolm, 36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes, Investors Business Daily, Jan. 26, 2012.38 Richard Rubin, Number of Tax-Delinquent Government Workers Up 11.5%, Bloomberg, Mar. 8, 2013.



Free Speech and Privacy

  1. Circumvented the Freedom of Information Act, by requiring White House Counsel review of all documents to be released under the Freedom of Information Act that the Administration believed pertained to “White House equities”—and then delayed in producing many of these documents by FOIA’s statutory deadline, or didn’t produce them at all.40
  2. Got secret permission from the FISA Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and emails, permitting the NSA to search American’s communications in its databases.41
  3. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking to monitor about 80% of U.S. credit card transactions.42
  4. Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co- conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak.43
  5. Illegally targeted conservative groups for heightened IRS scrutiny.39
  6. Secretly obtained phone records from staff at the Associated Press.44
  7. Had meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops near White House to avoid disclosure requirements.45


39 Greg Sargent, Conservatives have themselves a real scandal on their hands, Wash. Post, May 10, 2013.
40 Mark Tapscott, ‘Most transparent’ White House ever rewrote the FOIA to suppress politically sensitive docs, Wash. Examiner, Mar. 18, 2014.
41 Ellen Nakashima, Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011, Wash. Post, Sept. 7, 2013.

42 Richard Pollock, CFPB’s data-mining on consumer credit cards challenged in heated House hearing, Sept. 13, 2013.
43 Another Chilling Leak Investigation, N.Y. Times, May 21, 2013.
44 Mark Sherman, Gov’t obtains wide AP phone records in probe, Yahoo News, May 13, 2013.
45 Eric Lichtblau, Across From White House, Coffee With Lobbyists, N.Y. Times, June 24, 2010.




Other Lawless Acts

  1. Aided drug cartels instead of enforcing immigration laws—as found by a federal judge. Border Patrol agents, multiple times, knowingly helped smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.; “the DHS is encouraging parents to seriously jeopardize the safety of their children.”46

  2. Illegally sold thousands of guns to criminals, in the operation known as Fast and Furious,47 and then refused to comply with congressional subpoenas about the operation.48

  3. Dismissed charges filed by Bush Administration against New Black Panther Party members who were videotaped intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.49

  4. Argued for expansive federal powers in the Supreme Court, which has rejected the Administration’s arguments unanimously 9 times since January 2012.50

  5. Sued Louisiana to stop school vouchers and keep low-income minorities trapped in failing schools.51

  6. Threatened to arrest military priests for practicing their faith during the partial government shutdown.52

  7. Muzzled the speech of military chaplains.53

  8. Sued fire departments saying their multiple-choice, open-book written employment tests were racially discriminatory.54

  9. Gave 23,994 tax refunds worth more than $46 million to aliens here illegally using the same address in Atlanta, GA.55


46 Stephen Dinan, Border Patrol helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the United States, Wash. Times, Dec. 19, 2013.
47 DOJ Inspector General, A Review of ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters, Sept. 2012.
48 Jerry Seper & Stephen Dinan, GOP sues to force Obama, Holder compliance on Fast and Furious, Wash. Times, Aug. 13, 2012.

49 Kevin Bohn, Justice Department drops charges in voter intimidation case,, May 28, 2009.
50 Senator Ted Cruz, The Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts to Expand Federal Power; Senator Ted Cruz, Addendum – More Cases on Obama DOJ’s Expansive View of Federal Power; Senator Ted Cruz, Addendum 2 – More Cases on Obama DOJ’s Expansive View of Federal Power.
51 Obama, Holder Stand in Louisiana Schoolhouse Door, Investors Business Daily, Aug. 30, 2013.
52 Alex Pappas, Priests threatened with arrest if they minister to military during shutdown, Daily Caller, Oct. 4, 2013.
53 George Neumayr, Muzzling Military Chaplains, The American Spectator, Jan. 9, 2013.
54 Editorial: Firehouse flunkies, Wash. Times, Mar. 7, 2011.



Other Abuses of Power

  1. Released a mentally ill Guantanamo detainee,56 who had been a high-risk al Qaeda fighter in jihad combat since the 1980s.57

  2. Backed release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.58

  3. President Obama told NASA administrator to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world.”59

  4. Claimed the Fort Hood shooting was “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.60

  5. Signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives,61 and then acted shocked and outraged at the bonuses.62

  6. Gave $535 million to Solyndra, which went bankrupt; Solyndra shareholders and officials made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign.63

  7. Reneged on a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.64

  8. Increased the national debt more in one term than President Bush did in two terms.65

  9. Extended mortgage assistance to people who bought multiple homes during the housing bubble.66

  10. Proposed rules that would have decimated family farms, by prohibiting children under 18 from doing many forms of farm work.67


55 Terence Jeffrey, IRS Sent $46,378,040 in Refunds to 23,994 ‘Unauthorized’ Aliens at 1 Atlanta Address,, June 21, 2013.
56 U.S. judge orders release of mentally ill Guantanamo prisoner, Yahoo News, Oct. 4, 2013.
57 The Guantanamo Docket: Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris, N.Y. Times.

58 Jason Allardyce & Tony Allen-Mills, White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, The Australian, July 26, 2010.
59 Alex Pepper, White House, NASA, Defend Comments About NASA Outreach to Muslim World Criticized by Conservatives,, July 6, 2010.

60 Aaron Goldstein, Obama Still Doesn’t Get 9/11, American Spectator, Sept. 11, 2012.
61 Dana Bash & Ted Barrett, Bonuses allowed by stimulus bill,, Mar. 18, 2009.
62 Helene Cooper, Obama Orders Treasury Chief to Try to Block A.I.G. Bonuses, N.Y Times, Mar. 16, 2009.
63 Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin, Daily Caller, Sept. 1, 2011.
64 Josh Gerstein, 5 unmet promises of President Obama, Politico, Oct. 16, 2012.
65 Mark Knoller, National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush,, Mar. 19, 2012.

66 Prashant Gopal, Boom-Era Property Speculators to Get Foreclosure Aid: Mortgages, Bloomberg, Mar. 5, 2012.

67 Washington Elitists Want to Take Over the Family Farm, Investors Business Daily, Apr. 26, 2012; Dave Jamieson, Child Labor Farm Rules Scrapped by White House Under Political Pressure, Huffington Post, Apr. 27, 2012.

 PAGE 10



  1. Former “safe schools czar” has written about his past drug abuse and advocated promoting homosexuality in schools.68

  2. Nominated Timothy Geithner—who had significant tax issues69—to head the Treasury Department, which enforces tax laws.

  3. Reneged on campaign promise to broadcast healthcare reform negotiations on C-SPAN.70

  4. Reneged on a campaign promise to wait five days before signing any non-emergency bill (at least 10 times during first 3 months in office).71

  5. Unilaterally, increased the minimum wage for federal contract workers from $7.25 to $10.10, via executive order.72

  6. Cancelled all White House tours after sequestration—purportedly saving $18,000 per week—even though President Obama had spent more than $1 million in tax money to golf with Tiger Woods one weekend a few weeks before.73

  7. Adopted pro-union “ambush election” rules.74

  8. Pressured Ford to pull an anti-auto-bailout TV ad.75

  9. Actively, aided in George Zimmerman protests.76

  10. Tried to seize a privately owned motel when guests used illegal drugs at the motel.77

  11. Shut down the Amber Alert website, while keeping up Let’s Move website, during the partial government shutdown.78

  12. Gave supervised release to a convicted criminal (an alien here illegally) who later killed a nun in a DUI.79


68 Maxim Lott, Critics Assail Obama’s ‘Safe Schools’ Czar, Say He’s Wrong Man For the Job,, Sept. 23, 2009.
69 Jonathan Weisman, Geithner’s Tax History Muddles Confirmation, Wall St. J., Jan. 14, 2009.
70 Chip Reid, Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency,, Jan. 7, 2010.

71 Jim Harper, The Promise That Keeps on Breaking, The Cato Institute, Apr. 13, 2009.
72 Ed Henry, Obama to sign executive order raising minimum wage for federal contractors,, Jan. 28, 2014.
73 Tom Blumer, Our Petty, Country-Be-Damned President, PJ Media, Mar. 8, 2013.
74 Senator John Thune, NLRB’s ambush elections would hurt local businesses, The Hill, Apr. 19, 2012.
75 Daniel Howes, WH Pressures Ford to Pull Bailout Ad,, Sept. 27, 2011.
76 Documents Obtained by Judicial Watch Detail Role of Justice Department in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests, Judicial Watch, July 10, 2013.
77 George Will, When the looter is the government, Wash. Post, May 18, 2012.
78 Update: Let’s Move Website Works Fine – Obama plays Politics with Lost Children, shuts down Amber Alert website, The Right Scoop, Oct. 6, 2013.



  1. Shut down an Amish farm for selling fresh unpasteurized milk across state lines.80

  2. Spent $7 million per household in “stimulus funds” to connect a few Montana households to the Internet.81

  3. Spent $205,075 in “stimulus” funds to relocate a shrub that sells for $16.82

  4. Fired an inspector general after investigating an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant received by a nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson (now mayor of Sacramento).83


79 JW Forces Release of DHS Report on Illegal Alien Charged with Killing Virginia Nun in August 2010 Drunk Driving Incident, Judicial Watch, Mar. 4, 2011.
80 Stephen Dinan, Feds shut down Amish farm for selling fresh milk, Wash. Times, Feb. 13, 2012.
81 Nick Schulz, How Effective Was The 2009 Stimulus Program?, Forbes, July 5, 2011.

82 Thomas Cloud, Shovel Ready in San Fran: $205,075 to ‘Translocate’ One Shrub from Path of Stimulus Project,, Apr. 12, 2012.
83 Susan Crabtree, Allies of official fired by Obama mount defense, The Hill, June 24, 2009.





185 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.  20510

(202) 224-5922

September 5, 2014 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Here’s How Obama And ObamaCare Is Selling Out The Young Millenials, Get Ready For Pain


Remember back to the last election. All of the young people must have just thought that Obama was so cool. He was someone who made them feel good, or something like that. He promised to keep your rates on student loans low so that you could continue to be indoctrinated by liberal universities. And you feel for all of his false keep your healthcare plan and other b.s. In return, you young people voted for Obama by a margin of 28 percent. Simply amazing.

All of us older conservatives (and possibly even the libertarians among you) tried to warn you. We said that liberalism is nothing more than a scam to take your productivity and give it to us. But not only to us, the ones who are actually working for a living. Your income and production will also go to those lazy, good-for-nothings who would rather sit at home and collect food stamps and welfare rather than going out and finding a job.

But thanks to how you voted—for Obama—we now have ObamaCare and a full line up of liberal rules and regulations that are dragging you down. Congrats for this, by the way, you will be the first generation in the history of our country that does not even live up to what your parents achieved, let alone exceed their efforts. Given the fact that we tried to warn you, I do not feel guilty about what you are about to suffer. I can only hope and pray that you learn something from all of this.

Instead of listening to us, you are now going to have the opportunity to do all sorts of things that you will not want to do. You can now buy over priced insurance that you neither want nor need. In return, this will subsidize my insurance, making it cheaper. You will also have the opportunity to work at menial jobs for a lot longer than you have planned, most likely needing to take two or three at the same time to make ends meet (since ObamaCare is going to force more employers to only hire part-time workers). I hope you didn’t plan on that investment banking or real estate career, since the job market may be permanently destroyed.

When I started out there was hope and opportunity and the promise of a better life. Is that still true for you today? Can you work and get credit and start a business? Not very likely due to the crippling regulations, income redistribution, and massive debt that have come with your election choices. According to the current statistics, most of you still live at home with your parents. Even the new ObamaCare law encourages this, allowing you to remain on mommy and daddy’s insurance until reaching 26.

But, hey, all of this makes it much easier for me. Do you realize that the last time I wanted to hire an office assistant (and this is simply a very basic job) I received over 100 applications? Yes indeed. Not that I really needed someone who was too terribly qualified, just some decent writing and editing skills along with the ability to answer a phone call once in a while and operate a computer. Just as a basic lesson in economics, with 107 applicants, do you think I am likely to pay the ‘winner’ more or less of a salary than I had originally hoped?

So, young people of America…please lean something from this pain that you are about to go through. I hope it really sinks in about how liberalism works in reality. It is not about finding a president you think is cool, it is about re-shaping the laws and rules of how things work. But look on the bright side, I will be happy to pay less for my insurance and look forward to getting those social security checks in a few years…but I doubt there will be anything left for you when the time comes.

What do YOU think? Is this an accurate representation of how liberalism works? Would you like to add anything? Why do you think the young millenials voted so decidedly in favor of Obama? Do you think they have learned their lesson…or do they need to experience more pain?

November 11, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


Mark Levin: If Boehner Funds ObamaCare, It Becomes ‘BoehnerCare’


On his nationally syndicated radio program on Thursday evening, conservative talker Mark Levin said that if House Speaker John Boehner follows through with a plan to fund Obamacare in the upcoming Continuing Resolution (CR) that funds the government, Obamacare will become forever known as “BoehnerCare.”

“Rather than calling it Obamacare, we should call it BoehnerCare,” Levin said. “So I think I’m going to call it BoehnerCare if I can remember from time to time, certainly more often, because Boehner won’t even fight. Boehner, he’s just–is the word ‘pathetic’ appropriate?”

Levin was referencing reports that Boehner was going to cave again, this time on the upcoming CR battle where conservatives are aiming to defund Obamacare. “Earlier this evening, Speaker John Boehner announced his grand plans for fighting Obamacare in the budget,” Red State’s Daniel Horowitz wrote of Boehner’s latest cave. “He will pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) until some time in December, grouping the new budget deadline with the debt ceiling date, and create another grand end-of-year fiscal cliff.  He will fund Obamacare in the short term CR, but by George, he will fight like hell in the debt ceiling battle!  For now, they will make the short term CR about locking in the sequester cuts.”

Levin then shifted into criticizing Boehner over his contradictions over how he will plan to handle the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill. He read from a report from the National Review’s Jonathan Strong, who laid out how Boehner’s Super PAC aides were pushing the Senate bill on House lawmakers while the Speaker publicly says he is opposed to the Senate bill.

“Senior GOP aides of a Super PAC linked to Speaker John Boehner are lobbying House Republicans to pass the Senate ‘Gang of Eight’ immigration bill, legislation that Boehner has said he will not bring to the House floor,” Strong wrote on Thursday. “The lobbying effort is coming under the umbrella of the American Action Network, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) ‘action tank’ led by former senator Norm Coleman, which is touting the “major positive economic impact” of the Senate bill in e-mails sent to individual House Republican offices. AAN is housed in the same office as the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC associated with Boehner, and the two organizations share senior aides, including Brian O. Walsh, the president of both organizations, and Dan Conston, the spokesman for both.”

Levin ripped Boehner for the contradictions. “See how Boehner does it?” Levin chided. “He’s got his PAC that he’s been supporting and raising funds for lobbying Republican members, his own Republican members in the House to support the Gang of Eight immigration bill or something like it while he’s publicly saying ‘no, we’re going to break it into little pieces. This guy’s a snake. He’s absolutely dishonest. My great fear is he’s so pathetic and incompetent, as are the rest of them, quite frankly, that conservatives are not going to turn out in the next election and we’ll lose the damn House. We’re tired of these quislings and their dealings. And we’re tired of all the Bush staffers and ex-McCain staffers writing their little hit pieces on conservatives who dare to stand up to them. So, Boehner’s got quite the little inside-outside game going on with this Super PAC linked to him.”

Levin then said what Boehner is going to do get an amnesty passed into law is use “salami tactics, cut it into little pieces, get it passed with Democrat support, and send it to a conference committee. Then it’s over.”

Levin then said Boehner owes his entire existence as Speaker to the conservative movement. “You’re Speaker of the House, who we put there in 2010 with that election,” Levin said. “Just elect more Republicans, you see, that’ll fix it! More Republicans like him? Oh, it’ll fix it. It’ll screw us once and for all. As I’ve said so many times, what the hell does the Republican Party stand for today? I know what the Democrat Party stands for, I really do: totalitarianism, ultimately. But what does the Republican Party stand for? Appeasement. So I call them the French Republicans. Appeasement. You think the answers are there? You think the answers are with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell? You think the answers are with Eric Cantor?”

Levin then revisited the term “BoehnerCare.”

He said Boehner’s position is that “not only are we surrendering, we are not going to support a vote to stand up to Obamacare.”

“So it’s BoehnerCare,” Levin said. “And we should start repeating it: BoehnerCare, BoehnerCare.”

August 24, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



‘No Trust’: How Does the IRS ‘Inquisition’ Impact ObamaCare?

Stuart Varney on the IRS Now Being Part of Health Care, ObamaCare

Two girls pose for a picture with a cardboard cut-out of US President Barack Obama in a tent defending ‘Obamacare’ at a street fair in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 3, 2012. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

As the “IRS Inquisition” scandal unfolds, some are pointing out that the government agency is on the verge of not only having purview over your finances, but your health care as well.

Rush Limbaugh has theorized that this is one of the the reasons the administration and traditionally left-leaning members of the media have denounced the scandal so strongly.  The IRS must be seen to have made a mistake and been set right, so it can proceed at full strength for the implementation of “Obamacare.”

Stuart Varney appeared on Fox News this morning to discuss just how much the IRS will have control over with the complete implementation of the president’s health care overhaul.

“The IRS will be the policing agent for Obamacare,” Varney said.  “You’re going to have to, on your next tax return, you’re going to have to report to the IRS personal health care information…Do you trust the IRS with your personal health care information?”

Host Martha MacCullum continued: “It’s such a dangerous and slippery slope when [their] credibility is brought into question, because they of course know what you make…And now they are supposed to marry that information…with whether you are eligible for a healthcare subsidy.  And that raises questions, too, because you’ve got to keep them posted on every change that may lap in our employment picture.”

Varney interjected to say that’s not even the full picture.

“Your doctor is going to put on file electronically your entire medical history,” he said.  “At the same time, on a parallel path, the IRS wants to know about your health insurance.  There is no wall between those two areas of information.  And bearing in mind what they have done politically there is no trust that they won’t jump that wall and go into your personal medical history….And that’s where the lack of trust comes in.”

MacCallum noted that, when the bill was being passed, we were repeatedly assured that privacy and having your records online wouldn’t be an issue.

“But people have been scanning documents for catch words, you wonder what they’re going to scan in terms of health care and health records. It’s a legitimate question given all of this,” she concluded.

Varney concluded his remarks by saying the way things are heading now, the scandal may delay the implementation of Obamacare.

ThinkProgress reacted to the segment barely an hour it was posted, frantic that the reputation of the IRS may be tarnished.

“In reality, there is no evidence that the impropriety in the IRS office responsible for granting tax-exempt status to social welfare groups has bled over into other parts of the agency,” they wrote both reassuringly and inaccurately.

May 15, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Obama surrenders in Obamacare battle

Voluntarily seeks dismissal of appeal over health-care mandate

Published: 1 hour ago

The Obama administration has surrendered in a key fight with a business over the abortion pill mandate in the president’s Obamacare health industry takeover, asking a federal court to dismiss an appeal of a ruling that prevented application of the mandate.

The move was confirmed today by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Tyndale House Publishers.

Tyndale, of Carol Stream, Ill., went to court earlier because it objects to providing abortifacients as Obamacare requires of every health coverage plan.

Tyndale, the world’s largest privately held Christian publisher of books, Bibles, and digital media, won at a lower court level with an order that the abortifacient requirement not be applied in its case.

The Obama administration had appealed that ruling, but now ADF reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has dismissed the appeal at the request of the famously pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for Obama.

The brief order noted that the court panel got a request from the Obama administration for the “voluntary dismissal” of an appeal of the lower court’s ruling against the abortifacient requirement, and the motion to dismiss was granted.

That, according to the ADF, means the preliminary injunction issued by a district court in November of last year will stand while the case, Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, moves forward.

ADF noted that “the administration’s retreat marks the first total appellate victory on a preliminary injunction in any abortion pill mandate case.”

Apparently, ADF said, Obama is nervous “about trying to defend its position that a Bible publisher is not religious enough for a religious exemption to the mandate.”

“Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish,” said Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “The government dismissed its appeal because it knows how ridiculous it sounds arguing that a Bible publisher isn’t religious enough to qualify as a religious employer. For the government to say that a Bible publisher isn’t religious is outrageous, and now the Obama administration has had to retreat in court.

“We will continue to argue that the administration cannot disregard the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom for all family business owners and must offer a comprehensive exemption to the mandate,” Bowman added.

The Obama administration earlier argued before the court that the Bible publisher must be forced to violate its faith and beliefs to provide abortifacients to employees.

ADF said Obama’s abortion pill mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties.

The ADF is working on a long list of additional lawsuits over the same issue, as are a number of other legal teams.

WND reported a few months ago that the Obama campaign to demand the abortifacients was flopping in the courts.

At that point, the Obama administration had suffered 10 losses and only four victories in court fighting for the Obamacare abortion-pill mandate. Since then, there have been several other losses for Obama.

At that point, Bowman explained, “Washington politicians can’t confine our faith to the four walls of our churches alone. Honoring God is important every day, in all areas of life, including in our work. The Obama administration’s attacks on faith and business prove that it doesn’t respect either one.”

At the lower court level in the Tyndale case, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton wrote, “The beliefs of Tyndale and its owners are indistinguishable. Christian principles, prayer and activities are pervasive at Tyndale, and the company’s ownership structure is designed to ensure that it never strays from its faith-oriented mission. The court has no reason to doubt, moreover, that Tyndale’s religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives reflects the beliefs of Tyndale’s owners. Nor is there any dispute that Tyndale’s primary owner, the Foundation, can ‘exercise religion’ in its own right, given that it is a non-profit religious organization.”

The legal ministry has created a video explaining its work on fighting the Obamacare abortion-pill mandate:

May 6, 2013 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Media Bully Five Guys Entrepreneur For Telling Truth About Obamacare

by Larry O’Connor 13 Mar 2013, 5:16 AM PDT

When Mike Ruffer, an eight franchise owner of the Five Guys hamburger chain revealed this week that the economic impact of Obamacare would force him to raise the price of the popular burgers, he received national attention including a segment on The Rush Limbaugh Show.

Did you see the story, one of the franchise owners for that hamburger chain, Five Guys hamburger chain or whatever (paraphrasing), “We’re gonna have to get rid of a whole bunch of employees, get down to mostly part-timers. We can’t afford Obamacare. We can’t stay in business with it. The prices are gonna go up. The consumer’s are gonna pay for it. That’s the only way my employees can have health care, is if I raise the price of the food here and the customers pay for it.” And he’s worried the customers aren’t gonna have any money, nobody is, because of the budget situation and the economy.

When a business owner sticks his neck out and criticizes big government policies like Obamacare, you can count on the media to try to bully them into silence.Matt Yglesias at called Ruffer a liar because, you know, Yglesias knows the hamburger business better than the North Carolina entrepreneur:

This is self-refuting nonsense. The only situation in which it would make sense for Ruffer to raise prices is if price increases will on net lead to higher revenue. And if price increases will lead to higher revenue (which they might) then it makes sense for Ruffer to raise prices no matter what happens with Obamacare.MORE

March 13, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Celebrate Inauguration Day by Pledging to Doom ObamaCare

by John Nolte 21 Jan 2013, 8:14 AM PDT

As he frequently does, The Washington Post’s George Will’s written a column that helped to crystallize  some thinking of mine with respect to ObamaCare. While we’ve lost the battle against Obama’s government takeover of our healthcare system in the Supreme Court and legislatively, we still have public opinion on our side. And if my instincts and Will’s column are correct, we might still be able to bring ObamaCare down using the Left’s favorite tactic: civil disobedience.

According to Will, ObamaCare removes a major incentive to purchase health insurance. Yes, you read that right: ObamaCare removes a major incentive to buy health insurance.

My apologies in advance, but in order to make a point broader than the one Will’s making — the one about engaging in civil disobedience — I’m going to have to back up and bore you with a few personal details.

It will all come together, though, I promise.

How My Wife and I Lost Our Employer-Paid Health Insurance

In July of 2011, my wife and I decided it was time to get out of the failed state of California and return to our beloved home in the mountains of Western North Carolina. This meant she would have to quit her job, the job that supplied health insurance for the both of us.  This didn’t worry us. A longstanding program called COBRA allows you to hold onto your health insurance for a full 18 months after you leave an employer on good terms.

Paying for insurance through COBRA is extremely expensive, however. Obviously, after you quit a job, your employer’s no longer going to subsidize any part of the cost of your insurance coverage. The full freight for this was somewhere around four times what it was before. Still, we desperately wanted out of California and because of my wife’s stellar work record and references, we were sure the expense wouldn’t be long-term.

What we didn’t count on, though, was just how jobless Obama’s jobless recovery really is.

My wife has never in her life had trouble finding a good job. Her skills, personal character, work history, and references have never failed to land her a full-time position with benefits. Until, that is, Mr. Obama and his “recovery” came to town. Months turned into a year, which turned into 18 months, which turned into our COBRA expiring at the end of last month.

Because of a program set up  by our state that has nothing to do with ObamaCare, and despite a pre-existing condition that would bankrupt us within a couple of years (within the context of ObamaCare, I’ve written about my wife’s health before), my wife was able enroll into a high-risk insurance pool. It’s expensive, but we have no choice and are grateful for its existence.

I, however, do have a choice.

Why I Choose to Be An Uninsured-American

My health situation is a little less complicated than my wife’s. Though I’m 46 years-old, because I’ve been a health-nut for two decades, I’m healthier than most people half my age. But due to some decades-old spinal damage, I do have a pre-existing condition. This means that I too would not be able to purchase insurance in the normal market and would have to join North Carolina’s expensive high-risk plan.

This would cost me somewhere north of $5,000 a year.

Thanks to ObamaCare, though, when faced with this crushing reality, I did something I normally wouldn’t have otherwise considered. For this first time in 25 years, I chose to explore the possibility of not purchasing health insurance.

Because of my back problems, I have to see a specialist every three months. The visits are expensive and so is the daily medication I’ve been on for years — so expensive, in fact, that I was going to buy into that expensive high-risk pool, until…

I made some phone calls.

When I told my doctor I might lose my health insurance, without missing a beat, he cut the price of office visits in half. My pharmacy did something even more remarkable: they set me up on a discount program that — get this — cut the price of my medication to where it’s now a dollar cheaper per month than it was when I had full-boat health insurance coverage.

Is this a great country, or what?

So here are my options: I can pay less than $800 per year for doctor’s visits and medication, or I can pay $5,000 a year for health insurance. But with co-pays and the like, I’d still be paying at least $600 of that $800 on top of the $5,000.

Thanks to ObamaCare, my decision was a no-brainer.

Fact: Until something catastrophic happens, I’m never purchasing health insurance on my own again.

ObamaCare Removes the Primary Incentive to Purchase Health Insurance

Prior to ObamaCare, I never would’ve considered taking the risk of being uninsured. After all, if something awful should happen, I would be screwed without insurance. A cancer or heart attack could bankrupt me.

Well, not anymore.

Starting in 2014, (according to Will’s column) thanks to ObamaCare,  you not only cannot be turned down for health insurance due to a pre-existing condition, but by law, the cost of your premiums can no longer be based on your personal health or personal health risk, such as family history.

Under ObamaCare, the cost of premiums will be based solely on age, where you live, and whether or not you smoke.

In other words, thanks to ObamaCare, starting in 2014, if I’m uninsured and fall off a ladder or have a heart attack, I can call an insurance company and get insured at the same price I would’ve paid had I been dumb enough to have paid all along.

Granted, my decision not to purchase insurance puts me at risk until ObamaCare goes into full effect 11 months from now. But at my age, and based on my personal health and that of my parents, it doesn’t feel like much of a risk.

What it actually feels like is being liberated from a trap.

Until yesterday, this was all my own choice and I was nowhere near ready to make my decision public. Then George Will came along:

The point of the [ObamaCare] penalty to enforce the mandate was to prevent healthy people — particularly healthy young people — from declining to purchase insurance, or dropping their insurance, which would leave an insured pool of mostly old and infirm people. This would cause the cost of insurance premiums to soar, making it more and more sensible for the healthy to pay the ACA [Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare] tax, which is much less than the price of insurance.

[Chief Justice] Roberts noted that a person earning $35,000 a year would pay a $60 monthly tax and someone earning $100,000 would pay $200. But the cost of a qualifying insurance policy is projected to be $400 a month. Clearly, it would be sensible to pay $60 or $200 rather than $400, because if one becomes ill, “guaranteed issue” assures coverage and “community rating” means that one’s illness will not result in higher insurance rates.

So, Lambert says, the ACA’s penalties are too low to prod the healthy to purchase insurance, even given ACA’s subsidies for purchasers. The ACA’s authors probably understood this perverse incentive and assumed that once Congress passed the ACA with penalties low enough to be politically palatable, Congress could increase them.

But Roberts’s decision limits Congress’s latitude by holding that the small size of the penalty is part of the reason it is, for constitutional purposes, a tax. It is not a “financial punishment” because it is not so steep that it effectively prohibits the choice of paying it. And, Roberts noted, “by statute, it can never be more.”As Lambert says, the penalty for refusing to purchase insurance counts as a tax only if it remains so small as to be largely ineffective.

In short: Oh, baby!

Oh, hell yes, I’ll take the fine.

For decades, and only out of fear of the pre-existing condition clause, I’ve paid untold thousands for health insurance that I have never needed to a point where I saved any money. Thanks to ObamaCare, though, starting in 2014, that risk is removed and so is my incentive to pay for health insurance I honestly don’t need.

And now, not only am I saving money (and a lot of it), but the side benefit of engaging in a legal act of civil disobedience against Obama and his statist vision, is worth even more — it’s invaluable.

Hopefully, many of you now have your own gears turning.

A Word of Caution  

The reason I went into the dit-dit details surrounding my own story, is to make clear that the decision to cancel or choose to not get health insurance is a complicated one that requires a lot of thought and planning.  Do not make this decision lightly.

You might also want to wait for added confirmation Will is correct and that Justice Roberts did indeed outsmart Obama.

But if things are as they appear…

The Long Game

If enough of us discover that the responsible decision for ourselves and for our families is to choose the ObamaCare penalty over the ObamaCare mandate that says we must purchase insurance — if we decide to do the patriotic thing and pay for our own health care in the private economy, we can not only crash the ObamaCare model, but while doing so, improve our country’s health care system.

One of the biggest reasons the price of health care is so high is due to health insurance. Because most insurance plans (including the ones ObamaCare mandates we all must own) pay for almost everything, the market is removed from the equation, which means prices explode.

If auto insurance paid for brake jobs, I’ll guarantee you a brake job would be four times more expensive than it is today. But brake jobs are relatively affordable because the customer feels the pain of the cost directly, which creates a fierce pricing competition between companies that offer brake jobs. If we merely had to hand over an insurance card to get a brake job, they would probably be as expensive as an MRI.

Just look at what my doctor and pharmacist (or the drug companies) were willing to do when faced with the prospect of losing a customer over a lack of insurance. Suddenly they made their services/products easily affordable.

Funny how that works.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our acts of civil disobedience in choosing to go without insurance and instead pay the ObamaCare penalty, resulted in a separate health care system based on free market prices; and as a result, the cost of health insurance went down for all?

Again a word of caution: That’s the Pollyanna version.  Unintended consequences of every stripe must be thoroughly thought through.

But any opportunity we might have to restore free market sanity to our health care system is worth considering. There’s no question ObamaCare does just the opposite, but if a ObamaCare loophole can finally put a monster down that threatens the fiscal safety of our entire country, a jump through it is worth considering.

And I’m not asking anyone to consider doing what I haven’t already done.

Power to the people!

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

January 21, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Stafford Hospital: the scandal that shamed the NHS

Patients lying starving, soiled and in pain. Over-worked staff dogged by targets. Laura Donnelly tells how a culture of fear meant that ticking boxes trampled over the basic needs of the most vulnerable.

Stafford Hospital: the scandal that shamed the NHS

By the time Stafford hospital’s failings were exposed by regulators up to 1,200 patients had died needlessly Photo: PA

Laura Donnelly

By , Health Correspondent

7:20AM GMT 06 Jan 2013

It was the scandal that shamed the NHS.

Hundreds of hospital patients died needlessly. In the wards, people lay starving, thirsty and in soiled bedclothes, buzzers droning hopelessly as their cries for help went ignored. Some received the wrong medication; some, none at all.

Over 139 days, the public inquiry into the Stafford hospital scandal has heard testimony from scores of witnesses about how an institution which was supposed to care for the most vulnerable instead became a place of danger.

Decisions about which patients to treat were left to receptionists, inexperienced junior doctors put in charge of critically-ill patients, and nurses switched off equipment because they did not know how to use it.

Desperate relatives told the inquiry, chaired by Robert Francis QC, how patients were left so dehydrated that some began drinking from flower vases.

Related Articles

By the time the hospital’s failings were exposed by regulators, in 2009, up to 1,200 patients had died needlessly between 2005 and 2008.

It happened in simple terms because managers attempted to cut costs and meet Labour’s central targets, so they could achieve the coveted “foundation status” for Mid Staffordshire NHS trust – enforcing 160 job cuts as they tried to succeed.

Now a public inquiry, which opened more than two years ago, is attempting to address fundamental two questions. How was it that the regulatory and supervisory systems which should protect all patients failed so catastrophically – and what is to stop it happening again?

Mr Francis and his team have heard from 290 witnesses, and considered more than one million pages of evidence, in an inquiry which has so far cost almost £13 million. Repeatedly, the evidence has led to one question – whether a “culture of fear” means that the demands of the NHS hierarchy take precedence over the most basic needs of patients.

The inquiry heard that at Stafford, NHS targets ruled supreme.

Orders were cascaded down the management hierarchy, from the executive board, to the operational managers, to the senior nurses and matrons; nurses and doctors who failed to meet them were threatened with the sack.

It led to junior nurses and doctors abandoning seriously-ill patients to treat minor cases who were in danger of breaching the four-hour Accident & Emergency (A&E) waiting time limit.

For the same reason, patients were often moved out of casualty soaked in urine or covered in faeces, because the target – to admit or discharge patients within four hours – was under threat.

Meanwhile, nurses were instructed by senior nurse colleagues to falsify waiting times, and to claim that patients had been seen more quickly than they were.

During the hearings, one young nurse, Helene Donnelly, told how she tried to speak out but said: “I’d seen people die, needlessly I think in some cases, but certainly with a lack of dignity or respect, and that was so distressing to me … it wasn’t just once or twice that happened, it was relatively frequently.”

After she made a complaint, other staff threatened to physically harm her.

Despite an internal investigation into the concerns raised by Mrs Donnelly in 2007, no changes were made, she said, and she was left to work with the colleagues she had accused of malpractice. She left the following year, and took a job at another NHS hospital.

Dr Christopher Turner, a specialist registrar in Stafford A&E which is now a consultant, described a culture of bullying and harassment towards staff, especially nurses. He witnessed nurses leaving meetings in tears, after being told that their jobs were at risk if the four-hour target was breached.

Often, patients who were approaching the time limit were put in a clinical decision unit – a “dumping ground” where they received inadequate care, but which allowed nurses to claim that the target had been achieved. An emergency assessment unit was frequently misused for the same reason, becoming so chaotic that staff nicknamed it “Beirut”.

NHS managers staffed the hospital so thinly that there were never enough consultants to properly supervise junior doctors, who took much of their instructions from the senior nurses and matrons who enforced the targets.

At nights it was worse. After 9pm, the most senior surgeon left in charge was often a junior doctor, with little experience of emergency surgery.

Many of the nurses had never been shown how to use basic life-saving equipment, such as cardiac monitors, which identify whether a patient is deteriorating; some turned them off.

When patients arrived at A&E, there were not enough nurses to assess them. In fact, the task was left to receptionists, who took decisions based on a “gut instinct”.

Meanwhile, on the wards, patients – most of them elderly – were left in agony and screaming for pain relief, as their loved ones desperately begged for help.

The human toll was dreadful. In the course of 18 months, one family lost four members, including a newborn baby girl, after a catalogue of failings by the hospital.

Kelsey Lintern, 39, from Cannock, in Staffordshire, lost first her six-day-old daughter Nyah, then Laurie Gethin, her sister, 37; Tom Warriner, 48, her uncle; and finally Lillian Wood-Latta, 80, her grandmother.

Nyah had to be delivered in January 2007 by Mrs Lintern’s mother, Shirley, because a midwife was not attending – after another had tried to give Mrs Lintern a painkiller to which her notes said she was allergic, a potentially fatal error.

Nyah was born not breathing, she was resuscitated, and discharged after two days, despite the family’s fears she was still seriously ill. Four days later, she died, with a post-mortem disclosing four holes in her heart. Mrs Lintern said it might not have been possible to save her child, but that the hospital should at least have realised there was a problem.

Three months later Mrs Gethin died of lung, bone and lymph cancer, at the age of 37. It had taken 18 months to be diagnosed, despite clear symptoms, and only been detected when she was scanned at another hospital.

In January 2008, Mr Warriner, died after his intestine was accidentally pierced in an operation for bowel cancer. Then Mrs Wood-Latta, 80, died hungry and dehydrated after suffering a stroke. The family said hospital staff failed to give her enough fluids.

All around the wards there were lapses. Patients were left without medication, food and drink, and left on commodes. Basic hygiene was neglected: a woman was left unwashed for the last four weeks of her life.

Relatives tried to keep their loved ones clean, scrubbing down beds and furniture and even bringing in clean linen. One consultant described how amid the chaos, it seemed at though nurses became “immune to the sound of pain”.

For those whose relatives were deprived of care and even food and drink it was difficult to understand why there were so few nurses to tend to patients.

They could little imagine that in August 2005 in the hospital trust’s executive offices, a board led by Martin Yeates had decided to embark on cost-cutting plans as it attempted to secure “foundation trust” status.

Foundation hospitals were a flagship policy for Labour, supposedly the best in the country, and given many freedoms from Whitehall, including over executive pay, and holding board meetings in secret.

The trust needed to convince Monitor, the regulators, that it could meet key targets, particularly the four-hour wait, on a lower budget.

The NHS trust was desperately short-staffed, with 100 vacancies for nurses alone, but from 2005 onwards it embarked on widespread job cuts. Between 2006 and 2008 160 nurses left the trust either through retirement or redundancy; £1.3 million was spent on redundancy payments.

The board’s obsession about the project left executives blind to the impact cuts would have on patients.

Wards became more reliant on unqualified and untrained healthcare assistants, employed at much lower cost than nurses. On one floor of the hospital, the staff shortages became so extreme that two nurses were left to care for 40 patients.

In September 2007, Bella Bailey, 86, was admitted. Her daughter Julie became so horrified by the care her mother received, and the screams of agony from those left untended around her, that she and her family took turns every night by her mother’s bed. Complaints fell on deaf ears. A letter to Mr Yeates was not answered.

Her mother died after eight weeks of suffering, Miss Bailey began campaigning to ensure no other family went through such torment.

After she wrote to a local newspaper to describe the family’s experience, and to ask others to speak out, she was inundated with letters, and calls.

What nobody knew was that in April 2007 statistics had shown that death rates at the hospital were dramatically higher than elsewhere in the country.

West Midlands strategic health authority, which had responsibility for supervising the hospital, commissioned which took more than a year to decide – wrongly – that the flaws lay with the data not the care being given by the hospital trust.

As a result no action was taken to examine the actual quality of care at the hospital. In July 2008, a month after the report on the figures was produced, the authority’s chief executive, Cynthia Bower, was promoted to run the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which would be given oversight of all health and social care in England and Wales.

By now, the trust’s bid for foundation trust status had been approved in June 2007 by Andy Burnham, then a junior health minister.

Amid the celebrations when the status was granted the following February, the trust’s chief executive Mr Yeates told local papers the hospital had made “the premier league” while all staff were given £25 Marks & Spencer voucher.

The authorisation was made by one regulator – Monitor, which is responsible for foundation trusts – without being told that another regulator, the Healthcare Commission, later replaced by the CQC, was poised to announce a full-scale investigation of the trust, because of its concerns. Within weeks of the celebrations, the year-long probe was under way.

It was another year, before, in March 2009, the scandal was finally exposed. By now, Mr Yeates, the chief executive of the trust, and Toni Brisby, its chairman, had already quietly stepped down.

The investigation into Stafford found that failings were such that between 2005 and 2008, there were between 400 and 1,200 “excess deaths” – in other words, up to 1,200 more people died than would have been expected at a hospital with a similar catchment area. In the regulator’s last act, Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Healthcare Commission, described the findings as “appalling” – the worst that the regulator had ever uncovered.

Gordon Brown, then prime minister, said that what went on was “inexcusable” and a plethora of reviews and inquiries were announced – but crucially, not a public inquiry to establish how the systems supposed to supervise hospitals – the health authorities, and a labyrinthine regulatory system – failed so catastrophically.

In opposition, the Conservatives called for such an inquiry, which was also demanded by patients’ group Cure the NHS and by a campaign led by this newspaper.

On 9 June 2010, just a month after the Coalition was formed, Andrew Lansley, then health secretary, announced that a public inquiry would go ahead, and now its findings are about to be sent to Jeremy Hunt, his successor.

For those who died or suffered its findings are too late; for the millions who depend on the NHS they will be absolutely crucial.

January 6, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

HERE COME THE DEATH PANELS This is Agenda 21 from the UN, and it is far reaching! It is being used to tract our children already!

Has anyone seen the TV commercial in which elderly seniors talk about having “lived a good life”?  It’s chilling, if it implies what it appears to imply!


If you think this does not include you, or that it won’t reach you in the near future, think again.  First come the elderly–second are the sick and frail–third in line for disposal are the genetically infirm infants, children, and all others of any age group that are disabled and “unfixable!”  In the end, it will look like this:  Because individuals between the ages of 15 to 55 are considered the most productive in a society, they will be protected as long as they remain healthy and productive to society.  Those who are not producing for the good of the whole, become disposable, and are then forced into the death lines.  Infants, or in utero fetuses, will be tested, and those who are unhealthy and will eventually become a drain on society will then be disposed of either through abortion or infanticide.   To maintain a balance between the populations of sperm donors and females, the one sex that out populates the other will be trimmed down using the same process.  Anyone older than 55 years of age will move into the out box, so to speak, and retirees will become a thing of the past.

All of this information can be found, and verified, by looking into the philosophies and ideologies of the people that Obama has surrounded himself.  This agenda of population control is a priority with many of them.  Who wasn’t listening when Obama said in 2008, “Judge me by the people that surround me!?”

November 7, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, Political Corruption, The United States of America Constitution | , , | 1 Comment




Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts shocked many by siding with the administration’s argument in the case against Obamacare, there is a major constitutional problem with defining the health-care mandate as a tax.And that’s why the Pacific Legal Foundation is challenging the Supreme Court decision in a case that could prove to determine whether the Constitution’splain language about the conduct of federal government business means what it says. 

Excerpt


What If The Media Actually Told The Truth?

August 23, 2012 by

Hello. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. Today’s video commentary is about a strange concept: What if the media actually decided to tell the truth? Have you seen the latest Newsweek magazine cover out this week? Ultra-left Newsweek’s cover story features a photo of Obama and the headline: “Hit the Road Barack, Why We Need a New President.” My, how the mighty have fallen! Is it possible the mainstream media are finally starting to grasp what I predicted three months ago: that Obama will lose in a landslide? Has the first domino fallen? As the media realize that Obama will not only lose, but lose big, I predict this will be the first of many negative headlines for Obama. After all, no one likes to bet on a lame horse.



Tom Brokaw Blames Obama For Deficit

October 16, 2012 by

Tom Brokaw Blames Obama For Deficit


While appearing on “Meet the Press,” Tom Brokaw weighed in on the problem of the national deficit. The retired news anchor said that it has only gotten worse under President Barack Obama’s watch.

The Obama campaign has repeatedly harped on the unclear economic plan of Mitt Romney. Brokaw said that Romney should turn the tables and ask the President to describe in specific detail what he plans to do to reverse the problem he has caused.

“I do think that the governor is right, and we’ll expect to hear Governor Romney go after President Obama this time about ‘I want more details about your plan. You keep harping on me. I haven’t heard the details in your plan as well.’”

He went on to insinuate that the President needs to take responsibility.

Referring to debates that Obama was involved in before he was President, Brokaw commented, “President Obama was saying, ‘Look we’ve got a deficit of a half of a trillion dollars. I’m gonna get that under control.’ Well this week, that deficit is 1.1 trillion dollars and it happened on his watch.”

source: Copy and Paste    Public Liberty Digest,


SF gay activist arrested for child porn of 1 year olds

Posted on October 16, 2012 by

Copy and Paste


The Final Chapter? America at the crossroads

October 15, 2012


The Communist Party USA

The Marxist Party USA

The Socialist Party USA

The Nazi Party USA




MOLOTOV MITCHELL:  CLICK ON LINK  for viewing:    There are a series of MUST SEE videos.

Above is the WND new address for M Mitchell. For older videos, go to:

He CONTINUALLY adds new videos relevent to the current issues – no punches are pulled!
”Those racist, inbred Democrats”, one of my favorites, is part of many earlier videos which may not be available due to age.

American Center for Law and Justice:   Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow:

And so much more: Copy and Paste


October 16, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption, The United States of America Constitution, Videos | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



Last night Obama lied when he said that he supports the free market–that it is important to our economy–and that freedom is foremost in his plans for the future.  But on another day, with another agenda, Obama stated that “The free market doesn’t work,” and then went on to support government take over of the private sector.  The man has no conscience, and he would rather climb a tree and lie before he’d stand on the ground and tell the truth!  Furthermore, Obama’s accusations regarding Romney and his unwillingness to open his presidential plans is because he has none.  What I heard last night was that Romney gave more information regarding what he will do as President than Obama did regarding his own plans for the next four years.  That’s typical of Progressives, accusing opponents of doing what they do.  In order for an oppressive agenda to take over a country, it is imperative that the plans for the take over is applied covertly.  Otherwise those ideologies are naturally met with resistance.  The take over is done in small, incremental steps, so that when the people are bent over and getting screwed they don’t actually feel the full impact of what the oppressors are doing!  It seems to me that it’s very easy to understand, that when dealing with such an opponent, it’s not practical to expose one’s full intentions for the Presidential role.  It is not beneath Obama to copycat Romney’s explicit plans were they made available to him and his crew.   Regarding those plans, Romney does not have an “oh well” attitude, as Obama said last night.  No one has heard what Obama’s presidential plans are for the next four years.  Believing one has heard them is in the same boat Romney described last night, which is, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it’s the truth!  Obama is doing the same old-same old, thing he always does when he tries to defend his actions.  He divides, in order to conquer, with fear mongering, lies, distortions, distractions, falsifications, and he exaggerates truths.  He continues to hide his own background information but has demanded Romney publicize his.  And Obama continues to defend, with taxpayer dollars, the confidentiality seals on his own personal  documents.  Those documents, the fraudulent Social Security Ohio card, his school records throughout his college years, as well as any papers and/or articles he may have written, continues to be closed to us.  The documents in question are the same documents that would have been open to the public if Obama had been vetted before the nomination!  He has never been vetted!  People have such short memories, so it’s no surprise that they never learn from the past.  I don’t know if the descriptive term is naive or stupid in describing those who continue support this man, Obama!

Just Me


Romney charges Obama’s jobs plan failure

‘We have 23 million unemployed. Keeping status quo is not going to work’

Published: 13 hours ago


GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney tonight charged that President Barack Obama’s jobs plan is a failure, with millions out of work and looking for help.

“My plan is to put people back to work in America,” Romney said tonight at the first of three presidential debates scheduled for the 2012 presidential election season.

“Look at the history of the past four years. We have 23 million people unemployed. Keeping with the status quo is not going to work for the American people.”

Obama returned to his oft-repeated theme of blaming George W. Bush, asserting the taxation approach Romney was proposing was nothing more than a return to the “trickle-down” economy of the Republican plan.

Obama began the debate by reciting familiar campaign themes, suggesting once again that his administration inherited from Bush one of the worst economies in the history of the United States.

But Romney struck a theme of energy independence and advancing small business as keys to getting the U.S. economy growing again. He accused Obama of proposing “trickle-down government,” represented by more government regulation and more taxation.

Romney disputed Obama’s assertion he was locked into a tax cut, charging that under the Obama administration the middle class has been pressed by reduced income, diminished job opportunities and increased food and energy costs.

From the first moments of the debate, Romney looked Obama directly in the eye, took exception to president’s assertions about Romney’s policies, and gave more precise answers.

Obama pressed that Romney’s economic plan called for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in military budget increases, a program Obama asserted would demand tax increases on middle-income earners.

“Look, I’ve got five boys and I’m used to somebody saying something that’s not true and hoping that by repeating it I’m going to believe it,” Romney countered, asserting that everything Obama said about his tax program was inaccurate.

Obama insisted Romney’s tax-reduction plan of necessity would either increase the deficit or demand tax increases for the middle class, charging that under Romney’s definition Donald Trump would be a small business.

Objecting to Jim Lehrer’s interruption that the first segment was exceeding the 15-minute limit, Romney charged that Obama would increase taxes on small businesses at the cost of 700,000 jobs.

As the discussion advanced to the nation’s deficit, Obama reiterated his statement that he inherited a massive deficit, and appeared on the defensive.

“You have been president for four years, you said you would cut the deficit in half and you have run $1 trillion in deficits each of the four years,” Romney attacked. “That does not get the job done.”

Romney pointed out that when the economy was growing as slowly as it is now, more slowly than when Obama took office, this is no time to increase taxes.

“You never balance the budget by increasing taxes,” Romney insisted. “I don’t want to go down the path of Spain.”

“Does Exxon Mobil need more money when they are making money every time you go to the pump?” Obama argued. “We have to eliminate tax deductions for moving jobs overseas. A balanced approach to increasing taxes will help people go to college.”

Forty minutes into the debate, Romney challenged that Obama appeared to begin skipping around topics, ranging from Medicaid, to college education, to the taxation of oil companies.

“You put $90 billion of tax breaks into losers like Solyndra, this is not the type of tax policy you implement to make the United States energy secure,” Romney countered.

“I would like to tell the states they will get the Medicare dollars they got last year to manage the state poor as the states see fit,” Romney argued, asserting the states are the laboratory of government.

Lehrer asked Obama if his position on Social Security was different from Romney’s.

Obama asserted his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was independent in retirement only because of Social Security.

“There are millions of people out there depending upon Social Security,” Obama noted. “We can save millions by not overpaying insurance companies and health care providers. The way to deal with Medicare is to lower medical costs. With Social Security you do not need a major structural change.”

In response, Romney reassured the audience neither he nor Obama was proposing any changes for those 60 years or older, except he asserted Obama was cutting $716 billion from health care providers in Medicare to pay for Obamacare – at the cost of reducing the rates paid to providers, even though both hospitals and doctors say that under these cuts they will quit taking Medicare patients.

Obama countered by saying that for Romney’s plan to work those under 60 would be required to go to a voucher system.

“I don’t think vouchers are the way to go,” Obama argued, asserting that AARP agreed with him. “If you repeal Obamacare seniors today will have to pay more and the only beneficiary will be insurance companies when they are not making seniors any more healthy.”

Romney said he does not support taking $716 billion from Medicare and he argued that in the future those currently under 60 could either choose to go to a voucher system or stay with Medicare as it currently is.

Returning to the question of the deficit, Obama challenged broadly that greed and reckless profit-taking on Wall Street caused the economic downturn the nation continues to experience.

“Does anyone out there think we should repeal Dodd-Frank because there was too much regulation on Wall Street?” Obama asked.

“We have to have regulations,” Romney countered, “but Dodd-Frank provides for banks that are too big to fail. Two years into Dodd-Frank, we still don’t know what a qualified mortgage is.”

Up next was health care, and Romney began the segment by making it clear he would repeal Obamacare and implement health care reform on the state level, citing the example of how he instituted health care when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Obama said under Obamacare, each American could keep his or her own doctor and insurance plan, despite increasing evidence to the contrary already available in the health care market after Obamacare was implemented.

Concluding his opening to the segment, Obama tried to tag Romney with having instituted the predecessor to Obamacare in Massachusetts.

“I like what we did in Massachusetts, we had a bipartisan coalition, while you and Nancy Pelosi pushed through Congress what you thought was the best answer, even after Massachusetts elected a Republican senator to block you,” Romney charged, indicating CBO statistics that 20 million Americans will lose their current insurance coverage next year. “The American people do not want Obamacare. Something this big has to be done on a bipartisan basis, with a president capable of reaching across the aisle to get it done.”

Obama retorted that Obamacare was no different than the plan Romney instituted in Massachusetts.

“There are two ways to handle health care in the United States,” Obama asserted, in an answer that talked about a board constituted only to determine best practices, not to apportion or ration health care to Americans needing medical treatment. “We can leave people to fend for themselves or we can reduce the cost of health care in America.”

“The government is not able to bring down costs in anything,” Romney said, arguing that Obama’s example of the Cleveland Clinic proved his point that health costs are contained not by a board of 15 people dictating the type of health care people need, but by the free enterprise system.

“The federal government mandating to people and doctors what type of health care they can get is not the way to go,” Romney concluded.

Obama conceded that Romney’s plan in Massachusetts differed from Obamacare in that Romney’s plan involved a large increase in the private health insurance system.

Obama said Romney was not specific on exactly how he was going to replace Obamacare, just as Romney was not specific on how he would replace Dodd-Frank.

“My experience as a governor is that if I lay down a plan that says ‘My way or the highway,’ we don’t get a lot done,” Romney concluded. “I want to work together the way Reagan worked with Tip O’Neill. There are alternatives but my plan has objectives to reduce regulations and stimulate growth, state by state.”

Romney said “ignoring the 10th Amendment is not the way to have a vibrant economy.”

Romney said the key to education is great teachers, and he raised a reference to the U.S. Constitution regarding citizen rights.

“I interpret our founding documents as providing a responsibility for religious freedom – to pursue happiness by taking care of the less fortunate – but massive government involvement limits freedom – the path we are taking is not working with 23 million Americans unemployed and 50 million on food stamps.”

Obama said the responsibility of the federal government was important in improving the educational system in America.

“Budgets reflect choices. If we cut taxes to benefit people like Gov. Romney and me, it makes a difference,” Obama. He again demanded specifics of the GOP plans.

“When it comes to making college affordable, whether it be two years or four years, we cut out the middleman and eliminated banks from making a profit in student loans. Gov. Romney believes in education but he tells kids to borrow from their parents to go to college.”

Romney responded, “Mr. President, you are entitled to your own airplane and your own house – but not to your own facts.”

Romney said Obama put $90 billion into green jobs, but half of the recipients went bankrupt and others were owned by contributors to your campaign, and questioned the number of teachers that would have hired.

Romney proposed grading schools to know which were succeeding and which were failing.

“Massachusetts schools are ranked No. 1 in education because I care for education for all our children,” Romney said.

Lehrer lost an entire segment because he did not control the debate.

He asked what the candidates would do about political gridlock

Romney said as president he would sit down the day after he got elected with congressional leaders both Republican and Democrat to find common ground.

“This deficit could crush the future generations. Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need leadership in Washington that will bring people together.”

Obama quipped that Romney will have a busy first day because he was also going to repeal Obamacare – an idea Obama said would not be popular with Democrats when Romney is sitting down with them.

Obama said his administration saw progress even with a Republican House.

“Have we had some fights? Yes, because the fights needed to be had – leadership is being able to say no to your own party,” he said. Obama charged Romney had not been able to say no to the “extreme elements” of his own party

In his closing statement, Obama promised to continue to work during the next four years as he has during the first term.

Romney warned four more years for an Obama administration would put the middle class under an even heavier burden than exists now.

Tonight’s debate originally was to be divided into six time segments of about 15 minutes each and focus on domestic policy. The national television audience was estimated to be 50 million.

Going into the event, polls showed the two candidates in a virtual tie, each collecting 47 percent of likely voters, although a report in Politico said Romney led in toss-up states and “it is Obama who is losing ground.”

The events are set up by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a bipartisan group assembled specifically to organize the campaign debates every four years.

The commission was formed in 1987 and organized presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

Obama has had mediocre job-approval numbers and the economy is working against him, with unemployment remaining high despite his spending billions of taxpayer dollars on “stimulus.”

Romney’s economic message, however, hasn’t generated wide enthusiasm as of yet.

Republican strategist Mark McKinnon told the Denver Post the debate is Romney’s “last best chance” to take control of the race.

“He needs to have a moment that gets people to view him differently,” he told the newspaper. “And he needs to articulate some ideas that people think are credible on the economy.”

Dan Schnur, director of a political center at the University of Southern California, told the Post that Obama’s task is to protect his marginal advantage. David Birdsell of Baruch College in New York said short answers tend to make Obama “appear supercilious,” the Post reported.

He said, “The president needs to avoid looking smug, out of touch and arrogant.”

At five weeks ahead of the election, early voting already is beginning in some states.

The vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan will be at Centre College in Danville, Ky., on Oct. 11. Martha Raddatz of ABC News is scheduled to be the moderator. The debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics and be divided into nine segments of about 10 minutes each.

Two more president debates between Romney and Obama will take place Oct. 16 and Oct. 22. The first event is at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and Candy Crowley of CNN will moderate. It will take the form of a town meeting, where citizens will ask questions of the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. The last event will be at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla.. Bob Schieffer of CBS’ “Face the Nation” will moderate and the format will be the same as the first.

October 4, 2012 Posted by | Must See, Political Corruption, The United States of America Constitution | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment



ObamaCare Disarray as 2013 Nears… Beware!

Posted on September 21, 2012


National arts and crafts retail chain Hobby Lobby is facing backlash after filing a lawsuit opposing the HeathCare Mandate, with the owners claiming that it goes against their Christian Values. (AP)

Fox News:

A Christian-owned chain of hobby shops is facing a bitter backlash after suing the Obama administration over new requirements to provide insured employees with contraceptive and abortion coverage.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby filed the suit Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, alleging that the ObamaCare mandate violates the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The suit followed similar suits by Catholic colleges and a Denver-based company whose owners also objected to the mandate on religious grounds. While a judge has not yet ruled on Hobby Lobby’s suit, a Facebook page calling for a boycott of the company, which operates 500 stores in 41 states, has appeared online, and several other forums have featured posts urging customers to steer clear of Hobby Lobby.

“I’m boycotting Hobby Lobby!” reads the heading of one posting on image posting site Flickr. “Even if you’re pro-life this kind of action stinks to high heaven! If things like this can be allowed then what’s next?!,” the user added.

“They’re being told they have two choices. Either follow their faith and pay the government half-a-billion dollars or give up their beliefs.”

– Lori Windham, attorney for Hobby Lobby

Others have taken to social media to protest against Hobby Lobby, with a “Boycott Hobby Lobby” page on Facebook.

“I’ve been to two Hobby Lobby parking lots today and they were fairly empty. I used to have trouble finding a parking spot!” read one posting from the administrator of the Boycott page. “I think the boycott is catching on! I do not think they are getting the reaction they hoped for.”

Hobby Lobby owner David Green is a devout Baptist who owns one of the world’s largest collections of Biblical artifacts. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Green in his suit, argued that compliance with the offending portion of the health care law that the nature of their suit is “would force religiously-motivated business owners like plaintiffs to violate their faith under the threats of millions of dollars in fines.”

Lawyers argued that company employees are well aware of Green’s views and their bearing on the company.

“The Green family’s business practices … reflect their Christian faith in unmistakable and concrete ways,” the complaint states. The company employs full-time chaplains; close all store locations on Sundays and monitors all marketing and operations to make sure that it is consistent with their beliefs.

Failure to comply with the mandate could subject the company to as much as $1.3 million in daily fines, according to Becket Fund attorneys.

“They’re being told they have two choices: Either follow their faith and pay the government half a billion dollars or give up their beliefs,” Lori Windham, an attorney from the Becket Fund, told “We believe that’s a choice no one should have to make.”

David Green could not be reached for comment, but in a recent USA Today Op-Ed, he blasted the Obama administration for imposing mandates he believes he cannot comply with.

“Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy,” Green wrote. “Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right.”

The company does not object to providing coverage that includes birth control pills, but refuses to provide or pay for two specific abortion-inducing drugs such as the so-called “morning after” pill, because Green’s “most deeply held religious belief” is that life beginning at conception, the family said in a statement released through its attorneys.

As for the boycott, the company’s founders believe customers have the right to vote with their feet.

“The Green family respects every individual’s right to free speech and hopes that others will respect their rights also, including the right to live and do business according to their religious beliefs.,” the statement said.

Hobby Lobby is believed to be the first non-Catholic company to file an objection to the healthcare mandate. The Newland family, the devoutly Catholic owners of Denver-based Hercules Industries filed a similar suit this past summer and won a court injunction that ruled that they are not obligated to follow the mandate.

“I think the law and precedent set by this case is very strong for Hobby Lobby and the Green Family,” Windham said.

ObamaCare’s cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

Received this from a friend and fellow Classmate of mine. This is his son he’s talking about…

Our son was the Radiology Department Director for the largest hospital in Phoenix, for 15 years. Two years ago, a conglomerate, which was taking over hospitals around the country, via hostile buyouts, “acquired” his. The first order of their new business was to remove all the highest paid staff, replacing all with lower paid new hires.

Being of such educated stature, he was able to take his choice of several other hospital employment offers from around the country. He nearly chose Fairbanks but wisely moved just North to Paysen Arizona. Again, Radiology Department Director. Just two years ago, that community facility serving a large area just South of Flagstaff was busy and thriving financially. Today, he is unemployed again! The hospital is losing money in huge amounts. Why? Arizona has been forced to revise it’s program for servicing medicare/medicade recipients, cutting care to thousands of low income and elderly patients.

The use of the radiology department’s x-ray and other rooms are nearly stilled! This is certainly just one of thousands of medical facilities and doctors that are already feeling the effects of “OBAMACARE”…

ObamaCare’s cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

By Betsy McCaughey  –  Published September 12, 2012

President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they’ve known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he’s cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don’t be bamboozled. It’s illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won’t harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been  enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008  show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011  found that heart attack patients  were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more.  For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds “Medicare spending per beneficiary” as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim.  The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks.   Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer — slashing payments to hospitals — won’t hurt patients,  but the evidence shows that’s untrue.

Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of “Obama Health Law What It Says And How To Overturn It.”


CBO Raises Estimate of Those Hit By Obama Health Care Tax & ObamaCare in Disarray

THIS isn’t allowed even on Bourbon Street

There is only one way left to repeal, replace ObamaCare and reform healthcare and that is if we fire Obama in November and Hire Mitt Romney!

Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth!


September 21, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


GOP & 5 Dems. Votes Full Repeal Of Obamacare

While the Washington Post wanted to take swipes at the House for voting some 32 times to repeal all or part of Obamacare, with today making it 33, they fail to mention just how many times liberals have made attempts to pass it. Today the House voted 244-185 to repeal all of the ACA.

The Hill reports,

The House voted again Wednesday to repeal the 2010 healthcare reform law, giving Republicans some revenge against the late June Supreme Court ruling that found the law to be constitutional.

Members approved the bill in a 244-185 vote, after five hours of debate that stretched over two days.

 As expected, just a handful of Democrats supported the GOP repeal bill. Five Democrats, Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Mike Ross (Ark.), sided with Republicans in the final vote. Of this group, all but Matheson voted with the GOP in a procedural vote on the bill Tuesday.

Republicans insisted on passing the Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, even though Democrats pointed out that the bill would be ignored by the Democratic Senate. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) cast the bill as a way to give the Senate another chance to heed the will of Americans who oppose the legislation and see it as something that has led to increased healthcare costs and hindered job creation.

“For those who still support repealing this harmful healthcare law, we’re giving our colleagues in the Senate another chance to heed the will of the American people,” Boehner said. “And for those who did not support repeal the last time, it’s a chance for our colleagues to reconsider.”

Eric Cantor said, “I introduced this legislation on behalf of my colleagues so that we may all be on record following the Supreme Court’s decision, in order to show that the House rejects ObamaCare, and that we are committed to taking this flawed law off the books.”

This follows just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled the Obamacare mandate is constitutional as a tax.

Despite the House vote, Katie Hicks points out,

The House’s vote now goes to die in the Senate, where Harry Reid won’t pick up the measure in the upper chamber. Instead, this was a largely symbolic measure, hammering home the Republicans’ determination to get rid of it. Furthermore, it forces the Democrats to defend their support of a law that the public decidedly opposes: in the latest Rasmussen poll, 53% of voters want the Affordable Care Act repealed in full. Now that the law has been labeled a tax hike, the left will ostensibly have a harder time touting its merits; we’ll see if this vote — and its support from a few Democrats — gets any attention from Obama himself.

Just remember: five more Democrats voted to repeal the law than Republicans voted to pass the bill in the first place. Obama wants bipartisanship? There he has it.


Regardless if you favor the ACA or not, the fact is that health care is already severely limited in terms of doctors, nurses, etc., and rationing is not long up the road.  The law is unsustainable like every other government run program.  Graft, corruption, and criminal activity are characteristics of mankind, and the more power and wealth one accumulates, the more those things are lusted after.   When the US Supreme Court decided to call the mandate a ‘tax,’ it did so without that word being anywhere in the bill and without considering what that means to our future under a bigger government and one that will not fail, now, to use tax-justification to impose whatever it wants on the people.  It’s human nature to go through a door that promises further enrichment and power without regard for the growing group of impoverished souls.   Not only is the middle class dying out, the lower class is growing. Soon, there will be no class distinction.  It will be them and us.  How better to take control, keep control, and carry on the generational sickness of dependency.  George Soros and other elites are the actual rulers of this planet, and the goal, I believe, is a One World Order, in which they will rule with an iron fist.  God help future generations that will never know freedom.

Just Me

July 12, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , | Leave a comment


Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: