Monday, July 16, 2012

‘ObamaCare Catch-22': Crushing Fines for Religious Institutions Under Mandate

PJ Media ^ | July 16, 2012 | Bridget Johnson

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) talks to PJM about his new bill to counter provisions that could "tax religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence."

Before the House repealed ObamaCare once more last week, another bill was introduced to stop the Department of Health and Human Services from charging religious institutions steep fines for noncompliance with the mandate to provide birth control without an insurance co-payment.
Under President Obama’s healthcare law, the HHS can levy $100 per employee, per day against institutions that won’t comply with the mandate.

Therefore, religious employers with hundreds of employees could be fined millions of dollars each year. A 50-employee institution, for example, would face a penalty of $1,825,000 each year.
“ObamaCare gives the federal government the tools to tax religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), sponsor of the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act.
Using the language that the Supreme Court recently decided covered the penalties in ObamaCare, Sensenbrenner cites a February report by the Congressional Research Service that adds up the noncompliance tax to $36,500 annually per employee. Any group health plan and health insurance issuer subject to insurance market reforms in Title I of the Affordable Care Act that objects to coverage requirements based on religious and moral convictions does not qualify for an exemption.
The Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act would exempt such employers from any excise tax and certain lawsuits and penalties for refusing to provide objectionable coverage.
The bill has 67 co-sponsors, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
Another co-sponsor who was standing with Sensenbrenner at the press conference announcing the bill’s introduction was Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), whose Respect for Rights of Conscience Act to strike down the mandate was brought to the Senate floor by Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) as an amendment to a highway bill.
The Blunt amendment failed 51-48.
Sensenbrenner told PJM on Friday that he thought that was a “premature” way to battle the mandate.
“I’ve said very plainly to all of the participants — they need to build some kind of a grass-roots support for this kind of legislation in order to get the kind of vote we need to impress upon the administration that they’re wrong on this issue,” the Wisconsin Republican said.
He added that though he hears some criticism from conservative Catholics who want to stop at nothing less than full repeal, “Well, we can’t do that now.”
Fortenberry, said Sensenbrenner, “recognizes where we’re at on this.”
The introduction of the bill during ObamaCare repeal week was “not that coincidental,” Sensenbrenner said. When asked if the goal of the fine was to put religious employers out of business, he said, “I don’t know if the goal is, but that’s what the effect is.”
The congressman notes that he’s not Catholic, but even in his home state there are Lutheran institutions that would fall under the penalty if they chose not to provide certain services.
“Any religious institution that does any outreach whatsoever is going to fall under this tax unless they knuckle under to the Sebelius mandate,” he said.
“The wall between church and state ought to go both ways,” he added.
Sensenbrenner said he hasn’t gotten any reaction from the administration to his bill, and hopes that if it emerges from committee and clears the House it could eke out a majority in the Senate.
Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) all voted for the Blunt amendment. Retiring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has also talked about the value of religion in life, and could conceivably vote against the fines even if he didn’t vote against striking down the mandate.
Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said before the ObamaCare repeal vote that he wanted to get members on the record about the law; in the name of religious freedom, Sensenbrenner would like to do the same.
“If somebody votes against this bill I don’t know how they go home and campaign. That isn’t going to win very many votes,” he said. “It’s the principle of religious liberty.”
While there is solid conservative backing in Congress to end these harsh penalties against religious institutions, Sensenbrenner said a groundswell is going to be needed in the form of “very vocal support of the religious community” to get a bill such as his to Obama’s desk or otherwise force a repeal of the fines.
“They are the people who are hurt the most as the religious community, and they’re going to have to step up to the plate and say this is not fair,” Sensenbrenner said.
It’s like, he said, when Southern Baptist preacher and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, outraged over the mandate, got in front of CPAC and said, “Thanks to President Obama, we are all Catholics now.”
Sensenbrenner said his bill protects employers from “Obamacare’s Catch-22.”
“Our religious liberties are not bartering chips,” he said. “Let’s not treat them that way.”

Navy's new gender-neutral carriers won't have urinals!

CNN ^ | 7/16/2012

"The U.S. Navy's new class of carriers will be the first to go without urinals, a decision made in part to give the service flexibility in accommodating female sailors, the Navy says.

The change heralded by the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers – starting with the namesake carrier due in late 2015.

Omitting urinals lets the Navy easily switch the designation of any restroom – or head, in naval parlance – from male to female, or vice versa, helping the ship adapt to changing crew compositions over time.

Heads will be attached to berthing compartments. Currently, many sailors have to traverse a passageway between a berthing and a head.
Urinal drain pipes clog more than toilets and therefore can be smellier and costlier to maintain."
Poor Gerald Ford. Still can't get any respect. These new class of carriers should have Obama's name on every 'head.' Navy vet here just shaking his head - the one on my shoulders.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Mr. Obama This is the Result of Government Before Free Enterprise

Free Republic | July 16, 2012 | Self

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Barack Hussein Obama

Lets just find an example of where in the world this is true without fail, without exception without any shred of doubt that roads, bridges and infrastructure came before the free market paid for it via confiscated wealth.

Why, such a utopia exists. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Now this seems to be such a softball that the meme of the left will become "Oh every response to something Obama says is now going to be North Korea." The real world example of the logical extension of this thinking exists. You can hear the gnashing of teeth and contempt dripping from their voices as they say this. Yet the President making this outrageous statement in the first place will be praised.
So without further ado, here is your slide show tour of what happens when government spending and projects are put ahead of the free market.

Here some western tourists show their fear of traffic on the Pyongyang to Kaesong highway. This highway's U.S. equivalent would likely be I-95 between New York and Washington DC.

Here we show another magnificent DPRK 10 lane superhighway and its real world use.

Unlike many rest stops or scenic views in the United States fighting for parking spaces with obnoxious tourists is not a big concern. Behold the magnificent result of government needs before the free market of the DPRK.

Pyongyang is a bustling city during the day. Behold the magnificent result of building roads and infrastructure before supporting the free market.

Behold rush hour in the DPRK where government projects come before supporting the free market. Is this the mass transit version of the Volt?
You see Mr. Obama there are real world examples that exist where "someone else made that happen". I could have just as easily uploaded my photos from my 1982 trip across East Germany and day in East Berlin. However 30 years later those smart people scrapped that system in favor of ours.
I'm just trying now to figure out how you are so far removed from reality. Perhaps the Choom Gang has been re-birthed in the West Wing?

Barack Obama Obstructs Long-Overdue Deportation of His Loser Uncle Omar!

Reaganite Republican ^ | July 16, 2012 | Reaganite Republica

Barack Hussein Obama's drunk-driving illegal immigrant (half) Uncle Omar (Onyango Obama) is in the news again, but for once not because of his own (mis-) doing.

Although the only difference between him and the illegal, unlicensed, and soused Mexican immigrant that mowed-over a 16-year old girl with his SUV in Minnesota last week -killing her- appears to be dumb luck, he's also got a powerful ally at the very top of the vile regime that's currently running this country.

The illegal-immigrant liquor store cashier was first ordered out of the country in 1989, yet he's somehow dodged the law of this land for over two decades now. Finally at long-last in March of this year (2012) prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him- but then funny things started to happen:

Obama, who upon his arrest said his one phone call would be to the White House, has indicated he will fight ICE’s efforts to deport him in a high profile proceeding the Boston Herald conjectured could “drag on for years.”

While he fights deportation, Obama will be allowed to drive a car. He was supposed to lose his license for 45 days, but received a “hardship license,” from the Massachusetts’s Department of Motor Vehicles so that he could drive back and forth to his job at a liquor store.

On July 12, Judicial Watch released records showing agency officials withholding information on Onyango’s release from the press and Congress.

“It certainly appears that Obama’s uncle is receiving favorable treatment from the Obama administration, which explains that we had to sue in federal court to obtain this material,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“ICE should have deported Onyango immediately, especially after his DUI.
We now know that the Obama administration decided not to deport Obama’s uncle despite his being a criminal and being on the lam for at least 20 years.”

But considering how pathological narcissist Barack Obama has shown little or no regard for anyone that can't help him personally -including his also-illegal-immigrant aunt living in public housing in Baltimore and brother living in a grass hut in Kenya- all I can think of is that Uncle Omar almost certainly knows where the Bolshevik Boy Wonder was actually born... and drunks have a way of blurting-out things in desperation, knowhatimean?


Staggering Health Insurance Premiums as a Result of ObamaCare!

Don’t Expect Premiums to go Down With Health Care Reform – Some Customers Might See Increases of 50 to 70 Percent

By Erik Smith
Washington State Wire
Jeff Roe, senior vice president for employer and individual markets at Premera Blue Cross, and CEO of LifeWise Health Plan of Washington.

OLYMPIA, July 12.—If you think the cost of health insurance is going to go down under health care reform, think again, says the CEO of Washington state’s largest individual-insurance health plan. Many purchasers of individual insurance plans may see premiums rise 50 to 70 percent.

It was a statement Tuesday that hushed the room at a health care policy conference sponsored by the Washington Policy Center at the Doubletree Inn at Seatac. The policies that drive those numbers are no secret. They are embedded in the Affordable Care Act, which has been the law of the land since 2010. But with the Supreme Court’s decision last month to uphold the law it has become clear that health care reform is coming. Jeff Roe’s statement might be taken as a word of warning. Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
“This is massively bigger than we appreciate, and may be bigger than we are capable of pulling off successfully,” said Roe, senior vice president for employer and individual markets at Premera Blue Cross and CEO of its affiliated company, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington. Someday, he said, the nation might be able to “look back and see if we landed safely and squarely and whether it is a step forward. Today I think the answer is unknown.”
Roe’s comments created a buzz at the conference, where most attendees had some connection with the health industry or state policymaking circles. Given the complexity of the new federal law and the raft of new state laws designed to implement it, it has been difficult for anyone outside the insurance business or regulatory arena to translate it to a bottom-line number. But Roe’s figures, based on an analysis of his own company’s book of business, tied it all together. They challenge one of the central assumptions many have had about the new system that is just around the corner in 2014. Many figure that competition on insurance “exchanges,” the new state-by-state marketplaces for insurance policies, is going to drive costs down. In fact, costs are going to go up, and for the typical buyer of individual insurance policies, the increase might cause the jaw to drop.
At the very least, Roe argued, state policymakers now implementing health care reform need to avoid decisions that would further drive up the cost of insurance.
Richer Benefits
Reasons for the increases are all a bit technical, as is seemingly everything associated with the new law. A key point is that right now, most people who buy their own insurance policies, rather than obtaining them through their employers, try to minimize premium costs by buying policies with larger deductibles and copayments. But under health care reform, insurance policies will have to provide a richer level of benefits. The typical LifeWise customer purchases a policy with an actuarial value of 0.4 – meaning that the aggregate percentage of medical costs that are paid by the health plan rather than the customer is 40 percent. Under health care reform, plans that are sold on exchanges must have a value of at least 60 percent. So that means the benefits package has to be 50 percent richer.
Under the federal law, insurance companies can offer policies outside the exchange as well. But the Washington Legislature passed a law this year that essentially says insurance companies must provide the same policies outside the exchange as they do within it – because without the rule, state regulators argued that customers would flee and buy less-expensive insurance on the open market.
Add the effect of the mandates and taxes that are embedded in the act, and the fact that insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage to those with a pre-existing condition. Then add the fact that customers now served by the state’s program for high-risk customers will be entering the general insurance population. It becomes clear that the cost of the typical insurance policy will go higher, Roe said.
And the law doesn’t provide much relief. The law will offer subsidies in the form of tax credits to those who make less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level. But most current purchasers of insurance policies will not qualify, and for those who do, the subsidies may not be enough to offset the cost. That’s because the subsidies will be set on a sliding scale based on income.
“I think it is staggering that in fact the Affordable Care Act increases the per-person cost of health care from $9,000 to $14,000,” he said. “I find that just staggering. To focus in on two costs, though, I think really drives home that point.
Big Premium Increases
“The first is that in the individual market, we expect the cost of premiums to go up anywhere from 50 to 70 percent. Staggering amounts, and I can build that up for you this way.
“Our most popular plan in the market is our WiseEssentials Rx plan. It is a catastrophic plan with an actuarial value of 0.48. The minimum in the market allowed under the ACA is 0.6. So just on that basis it is a 25 percent increase.
“We expect the uninsured to add 15 percent in additional costs, because we know that they are less healthy than those in the system today, and if we get entrants from the high-risk pool, we can expect costs to go up another 11 percent.
“And then there is the insurer tax, which is 2 ½ percent. There is the exchange assessment, which could be as much as 5 percent. There is the Rx [drug] and device tax, which is 1 percent.
“So put that all together, compound it, and you are easily at 55, 60, maybe even 70 percent. Those are enormous increases.
Few Qualify for Subsidies
“And by the way, we talk about the subsidies and the benefits those subsidies provide. The fact is, there is a huge portion of the population that will not benefit from the subsidies.
“Seventy-five percent of our LifeWise Washington membership today is above 400 percent of the federal poverty level and will see no benefit from subsidies.”
In the small-group marketplace, meanwhile, where many employers purchase insurance, Premera estimates that risks will increase 7 percent to 9 percent, Roe said. “So there is another 7 to 9 percent in costs.”
An Important Qualifier
It should be noted that the premium-increase figures cited by Roe will not apply to everyone, points out Premera spokesman Eric Earling. There are plenty of variables. Certainly those who already are buying more-generous insurance policies will not see so great an increase. Perhaps it is safer to say simply that premiums will rise profoundly. But that’s the central message. Under health care reform, insurance premiums aren’t going down, and it’s something people better plan for.
In his presentation, Roe noted that insurance companies aren’t making the fat profit margins that many assume. In Premera’s case, it is 1 percent to 2 percent. Though 85 percent of the premiums collected go to medical services, leaving 15 percent, Roe said most of the remainder is consumed by such expenses as administrative costs, distribution costs and premium taxes.
Guaranteed Issue an Issue
He pointed out that the biggest insurers have been losing money on the individual market. Last year LifeWise lost $11 million, Regence lost $23 million and Group Health lost $6 million.
Premera attributes about one-third to one-half of the losses to regulatory policies that have eroded the rules surrounding the state’s high-risk insurance program. Basically, health plans in Washington state utilize a questionnaire that is designed to screen out the highest-risk patients, about eight percent of the population. They are eligible for the separate state program, which is subsidized by taxes on insurers. But regulatory changes have exempted about 40 percent of new insurance enrollees from the questionnaire. That has big implications for the new world of insurance that is around the corner in 2014, when “guaranteed issue” becomes the norm.
Roe called for more transparency in medical costs, mechanisms that would make consumers responsible for their medical-care choices, and rules that would penalize customers who drop insurance when they don’t need it and try to re-obtain it when they do. If regulators attempt to suppress rates, he said the state risks a repeat of the meltdown that took place in the late ‘90s, when insurers lost hundreds of millions and pulled out of Washington state’s individual insurance market. Premera, like other insurers, argues against efforts by the Office of Insurance Commissioner to consider companies’ surpluses in setting rates – essentially requiring them to take money out of the piggy-bank in order to keep rates low. The companies argue they may need it because of all the uncertainties ahead.
“The industry is in a perilous place right now, and I think given the additional costs that are on the horizon related to benefit increases, at minimum, it is going to be a real challenge going forward,” Roe said. “And it is why we say we need to have all parties represented here [at the conference] and in government to make the system more efficient than it is today, and in the process more affordable.”

Will your employer abandon health coverage under new law?

pioneer press ^ | 7-15-12 | Christopher Snowbeck

Under the law, employers with more than 50 workers will need to either offer coverage or pay a penalty -- a decision routinely described as "pay or play."

Peyton is philosophically drawn to sticking with her "play" decision. But she wonders whether the "pay" option could make more sense for her business and her employees.

Some workers might find better coverage through state health exchanges, which are being created by the health law and will offer subsidies to many health insurance shoppers. At the same time, the law brings changes to group policies that could make employer-sponsored plans more expensive to maintain.

"I kind of feel it's morally right to offer it," Peyton said. "But if there's a savings in paying the penalty and greater flexibility for my employees, I'll probably go that way."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Tells Entrepreneurs “You Didn’t Build” Your Business!

Heritage Foundation ^ | Amy Payne

That sound you hear is silence—as millions of small business owners and entrepreneurs were left speechless this weekend from President Obama’s latest insult.

The slap in the face to hard-working Americans conveyed Obama’s belief that it takes a village—a heavily subsidized village—to create that venture you’re profiting from:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Obama pushed his policy goals of infrastructure (aka stimulus) spending and “government research” as part of a collectivist utopia “doing things together.” It’s simply stunning that he would tell Americans, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that.”
After all, could individuals be resourceful and hard-working enough to create whole new enterprises? Obama said:
Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.
It is this view of successful businesses—essentially, “You owe us”—that drives Obama’s continued attacks on the country’s job creators in the form of tax hikes and regulations.
It’s a tough time to be a business owner and entrepreneur in America. Surveys show small business owners are struggling, and they are not expanding or hiring because of tax and regulatory uncertainty. Federal agencies, from Health and Human Services to the Environmental Protection Agency, are regulating them to death. And just last week, President Obama announced his latest economic plan was to hit job creators with a tax increase.
The President’s plan to raise taxes on earnings above $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) would hit 1.2 million small-business employers who pay their taxes through the individual income tax, known as flow-through businesses. These businesses that are creating jobs earn almost all—91 percent—of the income earned by flow-through employer-businesses.
The new tax increase could be equivalent to one employee per small business. According to calculations by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, the average American with $250,000 or more in income can expect an average $24,888 tax increase next year under Obama’s proposed policies. That $24,888 figure is often enough for a salary. So the President could be putting about 1.2 million jobs—perhaps even more—at risk with this tax hike.
Hitting private job creators while advocating more stimulus spending and government jobs. That’s the President’s plan for the economy.
Meanwhile, businesses large and small suffer from the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. This has long made the U.S. an uncompetitive place for new investment and has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations, meaning fewer jobs and lower wages for all Americans.
If the U.S. is to see economic recovery, we must encourage entrepreneurship. Stopping the biggest tax increase in American history, Taxmageddon, would be a good place to start. It’s a $494 billion tax hike set to hit on January 1, when a number of tax policies expire and just a few of Obamacare’s new taxes kick in. Businesses are already hesitating on hiring decisions because of the impending effects of these taxes.
Democratic leaders are demanding tax hikes, however, and threatening to allow Taxmageddon for the sake of politics—despite warnings that it would send the U.S. back into recession.
Real recovery will take even more than saving job creators from punishing taxes and regulations. It requires leadership that appreciates and values the long hours that America’s business builders put in and the personal sacrifices they make for their dreams. It will take leaders who say, “If you’ve got a business—you built that. And we want more of that in America.”

Obama wedding registry fund-raising strategy not a hit with brides (a total flop)!

New York Post ^ | July 16, 2012 | Chuck Bennett and Gerry Shields

President Obama’s bizarre marriage-theme fund-raising scheme — where he asks couples to request campaign donations from their guests in lieu of wedding gifts — has been a total flop.
The desperate initiative, dubbed “the Event Registry,” is being mocked by event planners and couples — and shows how desperate the Obama campaign is to keep up with GOP contender Mitt Romney’s fund-raising.
Campaign officials launched the initiative in late June, the same month Obama raised just $71 million compared to Romney’s $100 million.
So far, “the Event Registry” has been all but ignored on social-media sites — even though Facebook, Twitter and other networks have been a strong suit for the Obama campaign.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

I seemed like a good idea at the time!

Constructive secession: a frightening possibility unless King Barack I is stopped! ^ | July 16, 2012 | Derrick Hollenbeck, staff writer

If we can’t find a way stop Barack Obama’s shredding of our Constitution by his arrogant use of Executive Orders we are certainly headed for a Constitutional crisis not seen since the Civil War.
Obama’s continued assaults on the rule of law to win support and reelection from those with no stake in our country are now coming at a dangerous pace.

His narcissistic “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the state”) delusion must be stopped or at some point a state governor will refuse to comply with one of his Executive Orders –even one backed up by the Supreme Court. This could bring about a de facto, or constructive secession by states attempting to uphold our Constitution.
Constructive Secession
Borrowing from civil divorce law, constructive secession could occur when a state refuses to fulfill its obligations of compliance within the compact it has with the federal government. Barack Obama is well on his way to setting the stage for this to happen.
Utah already has a law allowing the satisfaction of taxes with payment in gold. Other states, South Carolina Georgia Idaho and Indiana, (all of whom are controlled by Republicans) are considering similar bills.
When this happens gold will become the local currency and necessarily differ in value from one state to another. This will in effect create state currency and bring about another step toward constructive secession.
In a marriage constructive abandonment can arise without the spouses separating and taking up new domiciles. In a constructive secession there would be no need for a formal declaration of secession.
States opting for a constructive secession would merely comport themselves as separate countries as they administer the several matters that dominate everyday life.
We already have dozens of states that have indicated they will not…
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Fed fiddles as America slides back into recession!

The Telegraph ^ | 7/16/2012 | Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The Economic Cycle Research Institute in America has doubled down on its recession call. A fresh US slump is not just a risk any longer. It has already begun.

Output slowed to stall speed over the winter. The US economy tipped into outright contraction in the second quarter, even before facing the "fiscal cliff" later this year – tightening of $600bn or 4pc of GDP unless action is taken to stop it.
Nothing serious is yet being done to head off the downward slide. If ECRI is right, the implications for the global system are ugly.
It is never easy to read the signals at inflexion points. Washington is always caught off guard. As ECRI’s Lakshman Achuthan says, it took the Lehman collapse ten months into recession in September 2008 to "wake people up".
What we know is that retail sales rolled over in February and broader trade sales peaked in December. Industrial output peaked in April. The nationwide ISM index of manufacturing crashed through the break-even line of 50 in June, just as it did at the onset of the Great Recession in late 2007, but this time at a faster pace.
Job growth has slumped to 75,000 a month over the last three months, too low to stop unemployment rising again to 8.2pc, or 14.9pc on the wider U6 measure.
Albert Edwards from Societe Generale expects the US economy to shrink 2pc this year, leading to a 40pc fall in profits. He says the S&P 500 index of stocks will ultimately plumb fresh secular depths, below the 666 bottom of March 2009.
The Federal Reserve has drifted into fatalism, seeming to lose confidence in its own ability to shape events, displaying the same lack of "Rooseveltian resolve" as the Fed in the early 1930s
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Guide to Obama’s Gaffes and Goofs ^ | July 15, 2012 | Tim Graham

Joe Newby at Examiner. com noted that the media that loves gaffes that make Republican look dumb somehow goes missing in action when Obama goofs. At a speech in Roanoke on Friday night, as more than 20 people fainted or struggled in the heat, Obama blurted out "the paralegals" would be coming to help.
Newby wrote, "A Google search at the time of this writing found that the gaffe has gone unreported by the so-called 'mainstream media.'", My own "all news" Nexis search confirms Obama wasn't tagged for this remark:

OBAMA: Now, before I finish, can I say, by the way, that some of you have been standing for a while and I see a couple folks slumping down a little bit. Make sure you're drinking water. Bend your knees. Don't stand up too straight. The paralegals will be -- the paralegals? (Laughter.) You don't need lawyers. (Laughter.) The paramedics will be coming by, so just give folks a little bit of room, they'll be fine.
Perhaps if ObamaCare would be fully implemented, you might need paralegals before you get health care. CBS noticed it, but didn't go beyond a tweet.

Catching his mistake," CBS Radio reporter Mark Knoller tweeted, Obama corrected himself and told the crowd, "you don't need lawyers." ..."Obama, meaning to say paramedics are available if anyone feels weak, says "paralegals" are around. Crowd laughs along with him," tweeted Roanoke Times Live.
The folks at Twitchy have now been picked up on an MSN aggregator, but as usual, Obama's errors are always seen as far too tiny (or don't fit the smart-liberal narrative).

Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'!

Fox News ^ | 7/15/2012 | fox news

Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects -- saying “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” Obama’s comment Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Va., came just days after he urged Congress to extend tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration only to families earning less than $250,000 annually -- part of his argument that top earners have an obligation to pay more to trim the deficit.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...




Tyranny or Freedom?

Next 4 years...

Quick Sand

The Outsourcerer in Chief



I Do Not Like...