Tuesday, August 13, 2013

HELP?

jh55py.jpg

Tea Party Terrorist

970174_568324706547450_727604216_n.jpg

VACATION?

30cve3k.jpg

Appalling

zxva8o.jpg

TITANIC

6_american_awkward.jpg

Blackout

IRS-In-The-Black.jpg

On the run!

Al-qad-Run-590-LA-wLOGO.jpg

Properity

16.jpg

Operation Obamacare

9qbc5y.jpg

NOT

rvvnt0.jpg

Brains

27024_image.gif

Race Hoax? Oprah 'Apologizes' After Accused Racist Calls Her a Liar

Breitbart.com ^ | 8-13-2013 | John Nolte

While promoting her new film, "Lee Daniels' The Butler," Winfrey relayed an anecdote about being a victim of racism to Entertainment Tonight. "I say to the woman, 'Excuse me, may I see that bag right above your head?' And she says to me, 'No, it's too expensive.' … She refused to get it."
Those are Oprah's exact words -- all told within the context of racism still being a very real problem for black people throughout the world.
During the interview, though, Oprah also refused -- and this will be important later -- to identify the store.
---------------
And what is Oprah's reaction to being called a liar by a racist? Well, it certainly isn't the reaction of someone who was the victim of racism and then called a liar by the racist.
No, when confronted with the shop girl's charge, Oprah issued a non-apology apology saying she was "sorry" the incident "got blown up."
Well, who blew it up? While promoting the movie, Oprah also shared the anecdote with Larry King. Obviously, this anecdote is part of Oprah's "Butler" promotional tour.
If we had a media worth a damn, it is right about now that they would be all over this.
1. As I said yesterday, isn't it just a little "too neat" that while promoting a film with a heavy racial theme that Oprah pulls a "this racism just happened to me" anecdote out of a $38,000 purse?
2. Why didn't Oprah want to announce to the world the name of a store that practices racism? Would that make the story too easy to check?
3. I repeat: Why isn't Oprah outraged that a practicing racist just called her a liar in front of the whole world?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

BLACK AMERICAN CITIZENS FILE “ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT” AGAINST OBAMA

WATCHDOGWIRE – FLORIDA ^ | August 13, 2013 | Dr. Richard Swier

The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) based in Sarasota, FL, headed by Chairman Frances Rice, filed Articles of Impeachment against President Barack Obama with the following language:
We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.
On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” - Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
ARTICLE 1
He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the investigation of the Benghazi Battle.
Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens in Benghazi; (3) lying to the American people about why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi; and (3) hiding from the media and congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to monthly polygraph tests.
Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:
On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was targeted in a premeditated, preplanned attack launched without warning by Islamist militants.
Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men attacking the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars. It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.
In that attack, four American citizens were killed: US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Ambassador Stevens is the first U.S. ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.
ARTICLE 2
He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’
ARTICLE 3
He has authorized and permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, to conduct Operation Fast and Furious, wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians and two rifles sold to a smuggler in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
ARTICLE 4
He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.
ARTICLE 5
He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012.
Elements of this illegal conduct include the facts that: (1) the head of the Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization division, Lois Lerner, admitted during a telephonic press event that illegal targeting occurred, then invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions before Congress about the targeting out of fear of self-incrimination; (2) two other career Internal Revenue Service employees stated that they acted at the behest of superiors in Washington — Carter Hull, a retired Internal Revenue Service Attorney and Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office which oversaw tax-exempt applications; and (3) Carter Hull stated that he was directed to forward the targeted applications to, among others, one of only two political appointees in the Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel William Wilkins.
ARTICLE 6
He has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012.
ARTICLE 7
He has authorized and permitted the Department of Justice to wiretap and secretly obtain two months of telephone and e-mail records of Fox News Reporter James Rosen and over one hundred Associated Press journalists.
ARTICLE 8
He has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.
ARTICLE 9
He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
ARTICLE 10
He has intimidated whistleblowers and brought twice as many prosecutions against whistleblowers as all prior presidents combined. Egregiously, while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, he prosecuted former Central Intelligence Agency employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.
Wherefore Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Obama Will Sign UN Gun Treaty While Congress Is On Vacation

ammoland ^ | 8/13/13 | Alan Gottleib

BELLEVUE, WA – -(Ammoland.com)- You heard it straight from the horse’s mouth. Jay Carney said Obama will sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty “before the end of August…We believe it’s in the interest of the United States.”
This is very strategic timing considering Congress is on a 5 week vacation lasting thru the month of August!
These back door tactics are nothing new for the Obama Administration, which is why we are using tactics of our own to stop his anti-gun agenda. We have the home fax numbers of every Senator so while they are absent from the Capitol we can demand they must not ratify the UN Gun Treaty once Obama signs it.
We CAN stop this international treaty from reaching American soil by killing it the United States Senate. The U.S Senate must ratify an international treaty for it to be effective. They would need 67 votes to ratify the treaty. Reach every U.S. Senator at their home office; tell them you do not want this treaty in OUR United States!
Select Here To Fax The U.S. Senate At Their Home Offices:
Demand They KEEP THEIR TREATY AWAY FROM OUR GUNS -
DO NOT Ratify The UN ‘Arms Trade Treaty’!
Everything Obama tackles in office is strategically timed and politically motivated. He only looks out for himself, his fellow liberals, and his anti-gun agenda. After mass shootings the Administration would launch all-out attacks on our gun rights since the country would be more susceptible to change after a traumatic event. He made sure the Benghazi cover up was swept under the rug until he got re-elected. He will wait to attack certain issues until the 2014 Congressional elections so he’ll know how many liberals are by his side.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...

ObamaCare can be killed by starving it to death!

Coach is Right ^ | 8/13/13 | Doug Book

The on-line exchange system is the Achilles heel of the Affordable Care Act. If there is not an ObamaCare exchange doing business in a state, no one can enroll for ObamaCare coverage and Mr. Obama’s namesake “healthcare” plan will literally starve to death. But the American people must also do their part to assist in the death of ObamaCare and end the left’s drive to single payer insurance.

Just 17 states have agreed to build an ObamaCare exchange. And with October 1st, the grand opening day for ObamaCare enrollment rapidly approaching, not one of these states is ready to complete the business of enrolling customers and selling healthcare insurance.
The remaining 33 states have refused to...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Fox’s Gregg Jarrett Accuses Obama: He ‘Doesn’t Even Understand His Own Health Care Law’

Mediaite ^ | 8-12-13 | Evan McMurray

Fox News host Gregg Jarrett became exasperated with analyst Alan Colmes over the details of Obamacare implementation, accusing Colmes and President Barack Obama of either not understanding or intentionally misrepresenting the number of people covered under Obamacare.
“Maybe the president doesn’t even understand his own health care law,” Jarrett said, playing Obama’s remark, made during his Friday press conference, that the GOP’s “holy grail” is to prevent 30 million people from receiving health care. “It’s 48 million! You would think the president would understand a basic, fundamental, and important fact about his own signature law.”
“That was a little bit out of context,” Colmes said. “He was referring to the 30 million who will get health care under the Affordable Care Act. The other thing the media—”
“No, Alan, the CBO did a study and said that even after its fully implementation there will still be 30 million that are uninsured,” Jarrett said.
“That’s in dispute,” Colmes replied. “The 30 million of the president mentioned in that clip is about 30 million who will be covered under the Affordable Care Act—”
“It’s impossible!” Jarrett said. “Do the math! 48 million uninsured. You are still going to have 30 million uninsured.”
The two continued to dispute the meaning of the number up until the end of the segment.
Watch the whole clip here, via Fox News:
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...

Unemployment Lower in Mexico than United States!

USBC News ^ | 2013,08,13 | USBC News Wire

Despite seeing an increase in unemployment over June, the unemployment rate in Mexico as of July, 2013 sat at 4.99%.

According to unemployment statistics, unemployment in the United States has been over 7.5% since President Barack Hussein Obama’s inauguration in 2009.

Despite continuing promises of “laser-like focus” on the economy, critics note that little has been done by the Obama administration...

(Excerpt) Read more at usbcnews.com ...

Oklahoma Wins First Obamacare Battle

Political Realities ^ | 08/13/13 | LD Jackson

Oklahoma ObamacareWhen Obamacare was passed through Congress, calculations were made. The Democrats made the assumption that most states would support the law and would gladly jump on the band wagon of the health insurance exchanges. After the dust settled down and the insurance exchanges are about to go online October 1, that turned out to not be the case. Over half of the states, 33 to be exact, have refused to participate in the exchanges. That left the Obama administration scrambling. Their law specifically prohibits the large employers in these states from being subject to the employer mandate.
I have made the case before that Obamacare was meant to be so open-ended that it could mean anything. We are seeing thousands of pages of new rules being written, both by the Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS. The open-ended interpretation of Obamacare gives them the chance to do this. In other words, if the law doesn't contain a particular provision, no problem. They just make it up as they go along. Such is the case that involves a lawsuit by Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his original suit in January 2011, charging that the federal government was stepping past what the law outlined. The federal government has tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but that motion was denied yesterday. This comes from the Attorney General's office, via The McCarville Report.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt Monday won the state’s first challenge against the Affordable Care Act after a federal judge denied the government’s motion to dismiss the case.Judge Ronald White issued the decision Monday afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in Muskogee.
“The court rejected the federal government’s argument that Oklahoma lacked standing to challenge the law, allowing us to proceed with this pivotal case,” General Pruitt said. “We’re optimistic the court will recognize what states have known for months that the IRS disregarded the law by making the large employer mandate effective in Oklahoma or in any of the 33 other states without a state health care exchange.”
Oklahoma challenged implementation of the Affordable Care Act after the IRS finalized a rule that would allow the federal government to punish “large employers,” including local government, with millions of dollars in tax penalties in states without state health care exchanges, which is not allowed under the health care law.
“Congress provided a choice for Oklahoma and other states in implementation of the health care law, and the IRS is attempting to take that away by rule,” General Pruitt said. “The administration miscalculated how many states would support this law, so now they’re using the IRS to push through provisions that Congress did not pass.”
Oklahoma’s original lawsuit was filed in January 2011. In September, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision, General Pruitt filed an amended complaint to raise issues related to the law’s implementation.
This is nothing new for the Obama administration. They are in the habit of making rules to match whatever requirement they deem necessary. If the original legislation doesn't contain the rule, that's not a problem. They just write it in, basically amending a law passed by Congress, without the consent of Congress. Scott Pruitt filed the lawsuit to challenge that practice and the court agreed that the case could go forward.
I am not a legal expert. Even if I was, I wouldn't venture a guess as to how this case will be decided. After the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare was constitutional, by changing the definition of a word or phrase, all bets are off on that. I will say this case goes to the very heart of Obamacare and its implementation. By at least allowing it to go forward, the federal court recognizes that Oklahoma and the other states involved in the lawsuit do have the proper standing to challenge the case. In doing so, the favored tactic of the Obama administration of getting these cases dismissed is blunted. It will also challenge the assumption by the Obama administration that they can continue changing and rewriting the rules to mold to what they want at any given time.
This case may not be able to stop Obamcare, but it should, at the very least, place some restrictions on how it is being implemented by an administration that seems to think they can do whatever they please. If you care about the direction our country is headed, and about the way the Obama administration is conducting its implementation of Obamacare, you should watch this case closely. I am hoping it will place a muzzle on the jaws of the IRS and help chain them in a corner.

Obama: "I Have No Patience for Countries that Mistreat Gays or Lesbians" Unless They’re Muslim!

FrontPage Magazine ^ | August 12, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield


Recently Obama became a born again champion of gay marriage and men using the ladies room.
During an appearance on NBC’s “The Tonight Show,” Obama told host Jay Leno said he has “no patience for countries that try to treat gays and lesbians and transgendered persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.”


He also seemed to believe that Russia’s controversial new laws curbing apparent advocacy of homosexuality could cause problems at the 2014 winter Olympics in southern Russia.
Apparently Obama has no patience for Russia, but he has plenty of patience for Muslim countries.
Here’s how it is in Obama’s hometown in Jakarta.
In Jakarta lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered, and transsexuals are legally labeled as “cacat” or mentally handicapped and are therefore not protected under the law.
In 2002, the Indonesian Government gave Aceh province the right to introduce Islamic sharia, albeit only to Muslim residents. For example, the city of Palembang introduced jail and fines for homosexual sex. Fifty-two regions have since enacted sharia law from the Koran which criminalizes homosexuality.
Meanwhile Saudi Arabia executes homosexuals (as long as they’re not influential locals). Virtually every Muslim country falls somewhere between these two poles.
Too bad the Muslim world doesn’t have any vodka to pour into the gutters. Discussing Muslim homophobia is a taboo. It’s fine to insult European countries, but treating Muslim countries the same way leads to persecution. Just look at the treatment Richard Dawkins is getting.
Of the seven countries that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, all are Muslim.
But Obama has patience for them. He even bows to them.

Presidential Vacation: Naughty or Necessity?

Townhall.com ^ | August 13, | Chuck Norris


Well, it's that traditional time of the year again when the president goes on vacation and the conservative world ridicules him for taking time off with his family because of the disarray of our country or the enormousness of expenditures in his doing so. But is there really nothing redeemable or commendable in a father and husband's spending extended time with his family away from home and office, even when it's the Oval Office?
Don't misunderstand me. I have very little in common with our current president, and I think it's ludicrous how much is spent for the first family to go on a single week's vacation. There must be an easier and better way -- if not many of them. But all of that doesn't discount the incredible value of a father and husband's pulling away from the rat race -- especially in Washington -- for a breather and some family time.
When we conservatives are decrying deadbeat dads and our culture's demise because of absentee fathers, maybe it's time we commend even our most ardent opponent when he gets it right with his kids. When people all around us are stressed out and suffering burnout from over-commitment and overtime on the job, maybe it's time we commend those who fight to balance their personal lives and win a single battle over the tyranny of the urgent. When even Sunday mornings have been dominated by children's sports -- squelching American religious commitments and church attendance -- maybe it's time to renew our value in a Sabbath rest.
One of my favorite chapters in my New York Times best-seller and cultural manifesto Black Belt Patriotism is the chapter titled "Honor and Care for the Family." In it, I not only vindicate many of America's Founding Fathers' views on marriage and family -- without condoning their wrongdoing -- but also discuss what I believe we can do to restore and strengthen the traditional family unit today.
Our founders were not faultless politicians, patriots, fathers or husbands. How often is it echoed that they had mistresses or infidelity misgivings rather than pointed out that they had commitments to preserve the role of family in America, including their own? (But if I can find value in our president's private time with his family, the least that my liberal friends can do is rediscover the value that our founders had in their families, too.)
The fact is that most of America's founders were passionately concerned with honoring the role of the traditional family in our culture. Though they weathered their own particular familial storms, the founders treasured marriage and family as institutions created by God that were indelible contributors to common decency and community civility.
For example, William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, wrote: "(A) Husband and Wife that love and value one another, (show) their Children and Servants, That they should do so too. Others visibly lose their Authority in their Families by their Contempt of one another; and teach their Children to be unnatural by their own Example."
In 1799, two years before his two terms as president, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his wife, Mary, and compared the political climate to his home by saying, "Environed here in scenes of constant torment, malice, and obloquy, worn down in a station where no effort to render service can avail anything, I feel not that existence is a blessing, but when something recalls my mind to my family or farm."
Jefferson also wrote to the renowned explorer William Clark, "By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family."
Benjamin Rush -- a physician, educator and signer of the Declaration of Independence -- wrote to his wife Julia, saying, "I shall be better satisfied if the same can be said of me as was said of the prophet of old, 'That I walked in the fear of the Lord, and begat sons and daughters' (Genesis 5:22), than if it were inscribed upon my tombstone that I governed the councils or commanded the arms of the whole continent of America."
You know the statistics today. You see the problems. Too many families are in complete disarray.
To achieve a better country will require a cultural and spiritual reformation. But we don't need to wait for some mass movement to start. We can initiate one with ourselves and our families. God has given every one of us the capacity to make a difference in this world for the better, and it starts at home, today.
There's no debate over what we need to do. The story is as old as the Bible, as basic as love and respect, and as pragmatic as Benjamin Franklin's advice when he said, "Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, half shut afterwards." (I hope he eventually took his own advice!)
Let's get on with it! We can't wait for Washington to rebuild our country. It starts and ends with us -- we the people.
It's August -- still summer -- and maybe time (again) to get our focus off the president's time with his family and back on our time with ours

Obama’s auto fatality gaffe

Red State ^ | 8/12/2013 | John Hayward

President Obama said some rather strange things during his appearance on The Tonight Show last week, but one gaffe in particular has flown low under the radar. While he was attempting to downplay the resurgence of al-Qaeda, the President said, “The odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately.”
This was before he came up with the idea of sub-dividing al-Qaeda into a bunch of little micro-divisions so he could claim he was telling the truth when he repeatedly claimed al-Qaeda was decimated and on the run during the 2012 campaign. Now he claims to have meant “core” al-Qaeda was on the run, but not New al-Qaeda, Diet al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda Classic, Cherry Vanilla al-Qaeda, or al-Qaeda Plus. On Leno, he seemed more interested in assuring us there was no reason to panic about terrorism, which explains why it’s important for the National Security Agency to monitor the electronic communications of everyone in America.
For a smooth orator, Obama’s delivery of that line was awfully clumsy. It’s unfortunate that more people aren’t killed by terrorists? I suspect late-night comedians would have made George Bush pay for dropping a lead balloon like that. But of course, Barack Obama will never have to worry about widespread mockery for his gaffes.
Clearly what he was trying to say is that more people die in car accidents that terror attacks, and it’s really unfortunate that so many people die in car accidents. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated just over 34,000 traffic fatalities in 2012, a five percent increase over the previous year. That’s a lot of fatalities, and it is indeed most unfortunate. It’s rather facile to compare terrorism on U.S. soil to such a death toll. We are routinely instructed by President Obama and his media allies to panic over far lower body counts from a variety of other sources.
But the other grating thing about the highway-fatalities gaffe is that lighter cars from elevated fuel standards are a significant factor in automobile deaths, and President Obama is four-square in favor of such elevated standards. He often brags about imposing higher fuel-efficiency standards, even though the auto sales industry has expressed concerns about how sticker shock from meeting these standards will reduce consumer demand. Larry Bell at Forbes put it bluntly in an August 2011 article entitled “New Auto Fuel Economy Standards Will Regulate Us to Death:”
These changes will have important safety ramifications. A 2003 NHTSA study estimated that every 100 pounds of weight taken off a car weighing more than 3,000 pounds increases the accident death rate slightly less than 5%, and the rate increases as vehicles become lighter than that. Two years earlier a National Academy of Sciences study estimated that CAFE standards at that time were responsible for as many as 2,600 highway deaths in a single year. A 1999 study conducted by USA Today applying federal government Fatality Analysis Reporting System Data attributed deaths of 7,700 people for each additional mpg mandated to meet CAFÉ regulations.
And that’s even before we consider the dangers of sending people into inclement weather conditions while driving tiny, unreliable electric cars. You really don’t want to be stuck on a lonely winter road in sub-zero temperatures when your electric-car battery dies. On the bright side, they’ve been known to burst into flames on occasion, so that would at least keep you warm for a while.
This is one of many examples of government policies presented as an unalloyed, nearly cost-free boon to the people, by hiding the true – and sometimes very “unfortunate” – costs, or passing them off as “unintended consequences” that nobody could have foreseen, even though plenty of critics foresaw them. Perhaps the American people would decide that more fuel-efficient cars and reduced pollution are worth a certain number of traffic fatalities every year, but the question is never put to them with such brutal honesty. We may be confident that Obama’s “if it saves just one life” standard, unveiled when he was pushing for gun control legislation, will never be applied against anything he supports, from increased CAFE standards to abortion.

'Butler' Director Launches Racial Smear Against 'White Folks'

Breitbart's Big Hollywood ^ | August 12, 2013 | John Nolte

Lee Daniels, director of "Lee Daniels' The Butler," can't seem to keep his charges of racism straight. I always thought that a sure sign of racism was how much rural whites love to see black people "perform." But now Daniels is claiming that he had to stock his latest film with white actors out of the fear that, unless he did, rural whites would not want to see a film starring only black people:
The new movie “The Butler” has a unique political feature: Portrayals of five U.S. presidents. (Robin Williams plays Dwight Eisenhower, James Marsden portrays John F. Kennedy, John Cusack plays Richard Nixon, Liev Schreiber as Lyndon B. Johnson and Alan Rickman plays Ronald Reagan).
Director Lee Daniels says that many big stars was, in part, a way to balance the film’s lineup of actors.
"I want people from Oklahoma, I wanted people from Nebraska, I wanted people from Idaho who wouldn’t be so excited about going to see an African-American film with these African-American actors, people that understood some of these other folks, white folks that were celebrities.” The film’s primary actors are Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Terrence Howard and David Oyelowo.
This, of course, is nothing more than Daniels hurling an ignorant and bigoted smear against rural whites (a club of which I am a proud to be a member). It is also anti-science. No white actors have ever been necessary to turn Will Smith, Halle Berry, or Denzel Washington films into mega-hits. And Oprah Winfrey, one of the stars of the "The Butler," isn't a billionaire today because large swaths of white America would have nothing to do with her.....
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Yet Another White House Obamacare Delay: Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015!

Avik Roy, Contributor


First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate. Then there was the announcement, buried in theFederal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.
Obamacare contains a blizzard of mandates and regulations that will make health insurance more costly. One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.
Out-of-pocket caps drive premiums upward
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you ban lifetime limits, and mandate lower deductibles, and cap out-of-pocket costs, premiums have to go up to reflect these changes. And unlike a lot of the “rate shock” problems we’ve been discussing, these limits apply not only to individually-purchased health insurance, but also to employer-sponsored coverage. (Self-insured employers are exempted.)
These mandates have already had drastic effectson a number of colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their healthy, youthful students. Premiums at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C., for example, rose from $245 per student in 2011-2012 to between $2,507 in 2012-2013. The University of Puget Sound paid $165 per student in 2011-2012; their rates rose to between $1,500 and $2,000 for 2012-2013. Other schools have been forced to drop coverage because they could no longer afford it.
According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay wasdescribed yesterday by Robert Pear in the New York Times.
Delay needed to align ‘separate computer systems’
Notes Pear, “Under the [one-year delay], many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.”
The reason for the delay? “Federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs. In many cases, the companies have separate computer systems that cannot communicate with one another.”
The best part in Pear’s story is when a “senior administration official” said that “we had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers…They asked for more time to comply.” Exactly how is it in consumers’ interests to pay far more for health insurance than they do already?
It’s not. Unless you have a serious, chronic condition, in which case you may benefit from the fact that law forces healthy people to subsidize your care. To progressives, this is the holy grail. But for economically rational individuals, it’s yet another reason to drop out of the insurance market altogether. For economically rational businesses, it’s a reason to self-insure, in order to get out from under these costly mandates.
Patient groups upset
While insurers and premium-payers will be happy with the delay—whose legal justification is dubious once again—there are groups that grumbled. Specifically, groups representing those with chronic diseases, and the pharmaceutical companies whose costly drugs they will use. “The American Cancer Society shares the concern” about the delay, says Pear, “and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.” But a big part of the reason those drugs cost so much is because manufacturers know that government-run insurers will pay up.
“The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health reform,” says Theodore M. Thompson of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” said Patience H. White of the Arthritis Foundation. “But they are extremely expensive.”
The progressive solution to every expensive problem? More subsidies. But subsidies don’t reduce the underlying cost of care. They only excuse the high prices that manufacturers and service providers already charge.
It’s one of the many aspects of Obamacare that should be repealed, if we are to combat the rate shock that the health law imposes on the vast majority of Americans. But that will require Republicans to come up with a smarter strategy than shutting down the government.