Friday, November 1, 2013

Stockman seeks special prosecutors for Obama

WND ^ | October 31, 2013 | Unattributed (evading IRS audit?)

Congress needs to assign special prosecutors to investigate Obama administration misbehavior, charges a congressman who has distributed to members of the U.S. House copies of the book “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office.”
“From Benghazi to Fast and Furious to crony deals for ‘green’ energy to Obamacare the lawless Obama administration must be reined in. I am calling on Congress to establishment Select Committees on these scandals with full subpoena power,” said Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, in a statement Thursday.
“We’ve seen how the Obama administration smears and defames their critics. Congress should investigate these scandals and turn the matters over to special prosecutors,” he said.
“Impeachable Offenses” is authored by New York Times best-selling authors Aaron Klein, a senior WND writer, and Brenda J. Elliott.
The book argues that Obama already has committed many violations of the Constitution that could qualify him for impeachment, including his health care legislation, which the authors describe as taxation without representation.
“I hope this book helps convince my colleagues to hold Barack Obama legally responsible for his disregard for the law,” Stockman said. “When told of his offense, Obama sought to cover them up rather than accept responsibility and correct the mistakes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Repeal Obamacare? Then What? - A Common Sense Alternative

Denver Business Journal ^ | 9/27/13 | Brian Joondeph

Obamacare’s popularity is waning in public opinion polls. Republican lawmakers talk of defunding or repeal, despite the current political improbability with Democratic control of the Senate and White House.

Pending the outcome of the 2014 elections, repeal may be an option. But what then? A return to the status quo of unsustainable health care spending, with an insurance system that leaves many with inadequate or no coverage at all, may avoid the many problems with Obamacare. But it’s hardly a solution.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Stick a Fork in Obama, He's Done!

American Thinker ^ | November 1, 2013 | William L. Gensert

We are only three and a quarter years away from transforming the United States of America. We may never get back to where we once were, but we can sure roll back much of the mess Barack Obama has created through his misguided policies and serial incompetence.

With ObamaCare's ascendancy and impending crash, America will be on the cusp of transformational action. The misery the ACA will bring to almost every American cannot be overestimated in its ability to incite anger -- and, anger has consequences and repercussions. The failure of the ACA has the potential to make 2014 a wave election for Republicans. In 2016, we may see a true conservative as president.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

ObamaCare: Socialist Trojan Horse in a Free-Market Troy!

American Thinker ^ | November 1, 2013 | Michael Grable

There's no mystery why ObamaCare won't work. It won't work because it's an absurdity. 

The only mystery is why anyone ever thought it would work. But maybe that's no mystery either. Maybe its proponents didn't care whether it worked. Indeed, maybe they didn't even want it to work.
It's no secret what ObamaCare's principals really want. They want a Cuban healthcare system in which the state is your provider, your doctor, and your hospital. They won't call that what it is -- a socialist system. Instead, they call it a "universal single-payer system" because that sounds better. It's an everybody-in/nobody-out system in which the Federal government pays for everybody's healthcare -- at first, by forcibly redistributing income from those who earned it to those who didn't and, later when there's nothing left to redistribute, by restricting both the quality and quantity of healthcare available.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Former Secret Service Agent Warns: President Obama Sees Government as a ‘Shiny New Toy’ ^ | October 31, 2013 | Erica Ritz

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who is running for Congress in Maryland, appeared on the Glenn Beck Program Thursday to discuss why he chose to run for elected office.
“We’re at a very dangerous point, Glenn,” Bongino began. “We’re in a lot of trouble. The president sees government — and I think it’s because of his lack of experience, and maybe community organizing in the past — as like this shiny new toy. And for all the disagreements I had with Clinton, Carter, and Bush, there were always limits. There was that line you just didn’t cross — we cross that seemingly every day…”
Bongino said that we’re “lost in the scandals,” from the IRS targeting conservative organizations to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius “shaking down” the healthcare industry, among others.
“It’s to the point where these scandals in and of themselves [that] would be huge, backbreaking scandals are just lot in the ‘scandal fog’ of this administration,” he said in disbelief. “It’s worse than people know; I’m not trying to scare you either.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Tragic Truth About Tattoos

Hub ^ | October 31,2013 | Pratonix

The Truth about Tattoos
I had written a hub earlier on 'The Dangers of Tattoos' - which was from purely a medical point of view. The present article is more comprehensive, and should enlighten the open-minded reader about the 'dark truths' behind tattoos.
Historical Aspect
History shows that tattoos have always been associated with paganism, shamanism, heathen (Baal worship), occult mysticism and demonism. The tattoo has never been associated with Christians, until the present decadent religious times. Wherever the Christian faith made its entrance, the tattoo made its exit.
Tattoos where associated with shamans or magic-men (witch-doctors). A shaman is an intermediary between the natural and the supernatural worlds, who is in direct contact with spirits who are invariably evil. Tattooing was often a magical rite, linked to scarification and blood-letting, and the tattooing process involved complex rituals and taboos, known only to the shaman and his tribe. In tattooing the skin is punctured and the blood is drawn. Licking the blood during tattoo operations is not unknown. The puncturing was considered the ‘opening of inlets for evil to enter’. Tattoos were therefore channels for demonic possession. Even today, certain tattoo artists burn incense and light candles during tattoo operations, while others allow ‘demons to guide the tattoo needle over the client’s body’.
Tattoos have always reflected a note of unabashed rebellion and marked deviancy. Hence tattoos were used to mark criminals, adulterers, traitors, deserters, the deviant and the outcast. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans did not tattoo themselves, but they branded slaves and criminals with tattoos. The Latin word for ‘tattoo’ is ‘stigma’ – which is a distinguishing mark cut into the flesh of a slave or a criminal, and was considered a mark of disgrace or reproach. By the early 1900s public opinion against tattoos was so strong that tattooed persons were considered freaks and found mostly in sideshows and circuses.

The Psychological Aspect
It has been observed that criminals, drug addicts, sex perverts and social outlaws are the overwhelming majority of the tattooed. Hard rock bands sport sick and lewd tattoos. Gangs encourage tattoos to instill a sense of ‘belonging’. Tattoos carry a streak of aggression and anti-establishmentarianism and are subversive of morality. Death (inclusive of skulls, snakes, demons, flames) and pornography (lewd pictures, nude figures) are popular themes of tattoos. Psychologists have considered tattoos to be marks of personality disorder which is manifested later in criminal behavior. Low self-esteem, lack of self-control, sadomasochism, bondage, fetishism, bisexuality, antisocial personality, mania and bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia – are reflected in self-inflicted multiple tattoos. Studies have linked tattoos to homosexuality, lesbianism and gross sexual perversion.
Tattooed youth are more likely to engage in sexual intercourse, take to alcohol and drugs, and exhibit violent behavior, and drop out of high school – by as much as 4 times compared to non-tattooed youth.
The Christian Aspect
Carnal Christians side-step the injuction in Leviticus 19;28 by arguing that the commandment is for Old Testament Israel and not for New Testament Christians. Does that mean that bestiality and child sacrifice which are forbidden in Leviticus are for Old Testament Israel and not for New Testament Christians? The New Testament does not have to spell out all sins. Smoking, for instance, is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere; but does it mean that smoking is not a vice or sin?
Reputed Bible scholars and commentators have made in clear that the moral commandments in Leviticus are for all time and not just for Israel in the Old Testament age. Leviticus 19:28 says, ‘You shall not make any cutting in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you. I am the LORD.’ On this Matthew Henry, Merrill Unger and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown have made it amply clear that tattoos are forbidden by God. It is to be noted that while ‘cuttings’ are qualified by the phrase ‘for the dead’, ‘marks’ (or tattoos) have no such qualification. Which means that all tattoos (Christian and otherwise) are evil in God’s eyes.
One of the arguments made by carnal Christians is that Lev 19.27 forbids haircuts. What Leviticus 19.27 is talking about is ‘rounding the corners of your head’ and ‘marring the corners of your beard’. These were heathen practices. One such practice was to cut the hair so that the head resembled a celestial globe. It is called a ‘tonsure’, a practice of heathens to honor their gods. The cutting of the flesh was demonstrated by the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. It is not to be forgotten that the demon-possessed man in Mark 5 was in the habit of cutting himself with stones. Cutting and masochistic self-flagellation is also practiced by Muslims during their festival of Muharram. In short, the injunctions in Lev 19:26-28 are a strong condemnation of heathen practices – witchcraft, astrology, cutting, tattooing, tonsures, etc.
In 1 Samuel 15:23 we are told that ‘rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft’. Tattoos sported by today’s youth have been the mark of rebellion and hatred of authority (besides, rejection of all moral values). In God’s eyes, the sin of tattooing is like witch-craft. We have already seen the origins of tattoos in witch-craft and shamanism. It remains to be researched whether this ‘witch-craft’ has also led to widespread demon-possession. No, tattoos are not ‘body decoration’; they have nothing to do with fashion and beauty; but rather they are sinister signs of moral decay and infiltration by evil spirits into modern society.

Obama donor’s firm hired to fix Web mess it created (Anthony Welters, Beatrice Welters)

NY Post ^ | 11/1/13 | S.A. Miller

A tech firm linked to a campaign-donor crony of President Obama not only got the job to help build the federal health-insurance Web site — but also is getting paid to fix it.
Anthony Welters, a top campaign bundler for Obama and frequent White House guest, is the executive vice president of UnitedHealth Group, which owns the software company now at the center of the ObamaCare Web-site fiasco.
UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Quality Software Services Inc. (QSSI), which built the data hub for the ObamaCare system, has been named the new general contractor in charge of repairing the glitch-plagued
Welters and his wife, Beatrice, have shoveled piles of cash into Obama’s campaign coffers and ­apparently reaped the rewards.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

ObamaCare: Illegal Voter Mine for the Democratic Party?

FrontPage Magazine ^ | November 1, 2013 | Arnold Ahlert

- FrontPage Magazine - -
ObamaCare: Illegal Voter Mine for the Democratic Party?
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On November 1, 2013 @ 12:45 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 1 Comment
While many Americans remain focused on the ominous implications of ObamaCare with regard to health insurance or the faulty website, a far more serious issue remains under the radar. On Wednesday, two national election watchdog groups alleged that ObamaCare is really a massive voter registration vehicle masquerading as a healthcare bill. Gregg Phillips, the founder of the election integrity group Voters Trust takes it one step further. “I think [it] is the biggest voter registration fraud scheme in the history of the world,” he told Breitbart News.
Phillips, along with Catherine Engelbrecht of True The Vote, cited a report published by Demos, an organization founded by left-wing activist billionaire George Soros. “Building a Healthy Democracy: Registering 68 Million People to Vote Through Health Benefit Exchanges,” couches this effort in noble terms, contending that “the freedom to vote must be fiercely protected for all citizens, regardless of class or privilege.” Yet the report focuses on the problems encountered by lower-income Americans who register and vote in far lower percentages than those earning more than $100,000 per year. Report author Lisa J. Danetz notes that of the approximately 68 million individuals she envisions being registered by the law, most of them will be low-income individuals “who will eventually enroll in subsidized health care under the law.”
Democrats enjoy a huge political advantage with regard to low-income, largely uninsured Americans. A Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll taken last summer reveals that uninsured Americans favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 62 to 27 percent. Among insured Americans, Obama’s edge was only eight points. Part of the political divide is explained by the fact that Hispanics and black Americans comprise half the nation’s uninsured citizens. Thus, any surge in voter registration facilitated by ObamaCare will undoubtedly favor Democrats.
The ability to use the healthcare bill to register voters comes courtesy of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), aka the “Motor Voter” law, passed in 1993. The NVRA requires programs offering public assistance benefits to offer individuals voter registration opportunities. The healthcare exchanges qualify in that regard, according to the administration.
What raises suspicions about the voter registration effort is the location of the question within the online form for ObamaCare registration. It appears on page 59 of the 61-page application, following numerous questions about an individual’s identity and healthcare qualifications. Critics contend the set-up may lead some people to conclude that registering to vote is required to receive healthcare insurance. Their argument is buttressed by introduction contained in the form. “This document (the “questionnaire”) represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations,” it states.
Last March, House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee chairman Charles Boustany Jr. (R-LA) sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius contending her agency had overstepped its bounds. ”The draft documents wander into areas outside the department’s purview and links applications for health insurance subsidies to voter registration,” he wrote. “The position of the question could lead some to think voter registration is somehow tied to subsidy eligibility,” he added.
Boustany’s chief concerns revolved around what the HHS planned to do with the information it receives from each applicant, and whether ObamaCare “navigators,” many of whom are drawn from left-wing groups such as ACORN, Planned Parenthood, the National Urban League, United Labor Unions, Organizing For America (OFA) and the Virginia Poverty Law Center will steer their clients to the Democrat party.
Engelbrecht and Phillips share those concerns, believing the data collected by HHS will be used by those activist groups to conduct what amounts to a taxpayer subsidized, get-out-the-vote effort for the Democrat Party. Phillips further contends a similar effort was conducted during the early years of the Clinton administration. Engelbrecht agrees, noting that the Motor Voter law “was among the first bills signed by Bill Clinton.” Both believe ObamaCare is little more than a healthcare bill masquerading as a giant voter registration scheme.
“That’s why the exchanges seem now to be so ill-conceived; they weren’t meant to be the focus,” said Engelbrecht. ”The administration put their time and energy and effort into developing pipes into 50 states so that they could funnel through Medicaid enrollees and voter registrations. That’s what this is about. That’s the game. As part of that strategy, we’ll have millions of new voters by virtue of the new Medicaid patients that are flooding in.”
Medicaid patients are apparently the key. Phillips agrees they are coming into the healthcare system in huge numbers. “You’ve got every state all over the country seeing these cases,” he notes, further explaining that income verification is not required for submissions. Income verification for ObamaCare applicants was ostensibly the only concession won by the Republicans during the government shut down. But the Washington Post reveals the ultimate version of that concession was watered down to the point of meaninglessness when Obama signed off on the deal that re-opened the federal government.
Thus the possibility of fraud is very real, as many Americans will likely under-report their income in in exchange for greater insurance subsidies.
Unfortunately, that may be the lesser of two evils. The healthcare bill specifies that when low-income enrollees enter an exchange and qualify for insurance subsidies, they are automatically registered to vote, especially if they qualify for the Medicaid part of the program. Like Rep. Boustany, Engelbrecht believes the automatic opt-in, which marks a change from the method employed by the Motor Voter law, is a ploy and that very few applicants would resist ”upsetting the apple cart” by opting out. “Most people will just do what they think the government wants them to do,” she contends. “What they want is free healthcare.”
And since the NVRA requires any agency registering people to vote to provide help to those people if they want it, the aforementioned leftist-dominated ObamaCare navigators can visit people’s homes to help them sign up for insurance and register to vote.
Automatic voter registration is a critical component of this effort. Unless applicants specify they would like to opt-out of voter registration, states will likely be inundated with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of computer-generated applications. As a result of this deluge, the approval standards for those applications will likely become far less stringent than they should be. Once a state approves an application, it automatically mails out a voter registration card. Whoever receives it can simply sign it, mail it back to authorities, and be registered to vote–absent any face-to-face interaction with any state official.
Yet the NVRA requires “Face to Face” Initial Applications. So how is the Obama administration getting around that requirement? According to Phillips, the administration is contending that a visit to the website is tantamount to a physical appearance at a government office! Phillips notes the absurdity of such a contention. “The very idea that I get to open up my website and call that my office, does that mean al Qaeda on their 5,000 websites, that those are their offices? Of course not. It’s ridiculous,” he explains.
In other words, it would appear the rule of law is being kicked to the curb. As of now, the administration is getting away with it.
Their triumph might be short-lived. Conservative legal scholars argue that the exchanges operate as private insurance marketplaces. Thus, they don’t fall under the NVRA’s definition of social service providers, and shouldn’t be linked to voter registration. Furthermore, the exchanges differ from state to state, with some operating as nonprofits, while other emanate from a state’s health or human services agency. And in most states the federal government runs the exchanges. ”It’s going to depend on how much it looks like traditional public assistance,” said Daniel Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University. “It’s quite likely that it will play out in court, and quite frankly it should.”
Until it does, the administration is moving forward, and voter rights activists will continue to insist this is not a partisan-based effort. ”Those new voters could be up for grabs by all parties,” said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office. “I think it’s very unreasonable to assume someone voting for the first time is necessarily going to be voting one way or the other.”
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argues otherwise. “Remember when we first learned who was getting money to set up exchanges in California?” Limbaugh asked his listeners. “The SEIU covered California; it was a bunch of left-wing activists. And the NAACP. And from that universe of people, the navigators are hired. What do you think is really going on? Voter registration. In addition to you going to get your healthcare, there is obviously massive Democrat voter registration going on at these exchanges.”
Who’s right? Americans should ask themselves if the Obama administration would be gung-ho about registering low-income voters using navigators for whom there are no federal background checks, if they thought there was even the remotest chance that “new voters could be up for grabs by all parties.”

The New Yorker's Cover...amazing!


Who told her?


Be still...




Get used to it!








Private sector vs Public sector


For thee...


Suspicious numbers


Problems solved


lyin' eyes


Who's the extremist?


Obama's Baby




The Tipping Point We've Dreamed Of? ^ | November 1, 2013 | Mark Davis

I close my eyes and imagine the coming days. The American public growing skeptical and then outright dismissive of Obamacare. A growing revulsion over the administration's Benghazi deception. A national awakening to the crises we face in spending, especially on entitlements.
But then I open my eyes, and I have to look at the real world.
Sure, "Saturday Night Live" and late-night comics are poking fun at the disastrous rollout. But does anyone doubt that these pop-culture jokesters would still vote for Obama by 90 percent margins in the next five elections if they could?
Do not fool yourselves. Yes, this was a great week. Kathleen Sebelius was just as arrogant and impatient as Obamacare opponents could wish. The website remains a national joke. The President's job approval and favorable ratings are sinking like a stone.
But these are snapshots of the moment. They do not guarantee Republican success in 2016. They do not guarantee Republican success in 2014. They do not even guarantee that all of this is front of mind come Christmas.
It is the job of conservatism and its supposed fighting force in the Republican party to win enough seats to beat back this administration's poisonous agenda for every day that it remains in power.
A few days of edgy hearings spent browbeating Obama's HHS secretary is useful. But real victory involves far, far more.
It involves personalizing our politics. And I don't mean getting personally negative about the President. As we focus on the next two elections, I don't even care so much about him. I don't need to hear one more word about Bill Ayers or Saul Alinsky or whatever commies he was hanging out with in his youth. We will attract no new voters by obsessing over our mile-long list of gripes about this regime, however well-founded they may be.
The opportunity we face right now is to grab the attention of the slice of voters that doesn't really know how to feel about Obama any more. Maybe they voted for him, once, maybe twice, but like millions of other folks, they didn't think much about it.
But now maybe their insurance just got cancelled because of Obamacare. Maybe they saw their hours cut by an employer trying to live under its whip. Maybe they've actually seen some success in the last few years, only to see their income devoured by taxes Democrats seek to boost even higher.
Now imagine millions of Americans sitting down for another night of "Dancing With the Stars," "NCIS," Leno or Letterman. Then, dropped into a commercial break, this:
A couple in their 30s or 40s sits on a couch in a pleasant living room, addressing the camera.
"Hi, I'm Tom, and this is my wife Debbie," the man says. "We voted for Barack Obama. Twice."
"We thought it was the right thing to do," Debbie adds. "We liked him and we liked the way his ideas sounded."
"But then we got this," Tom says, holding up a folded letter. "Our insurance just got canceled. We liked our policy, and we believed Barack Obama when he said we could keep it."
"We believed a lot of things," Debbie picks up. "We believed the stimulus would work. We believed when they said some goofy video sparked the Benghazi attacks. We believed when the President said there would be accountability for the IRS scandal."
"But all of the people who did these things are still there," Tom continues. "I don't know what all the answers are to all of our country's problems. But I do know this: I see a lot of ideas that are not good for my family, and not good for my country. I see what has not worked and what is not working. I'm ready for some new ideas."
Debbie closes: "And some new leadership."
Cue the voice-over guy: "This message brought to you by the Republican National Committee." Or Chick-Fil-A, or Hobby Lobby or Monster Energy Drink or whoever wants to place it in about twenty shows people actually watch.
I get asked all the time: How did Obama win twice when conservative talk radio is so popular and Fox News beats the stuffing out of its cable news competition?
The answer is simple. For every consumer of that noble content, there are at least ten who do not absorb political talk radio or watch the Fox News prime time lineup.
We have to come to them. We have to drop a message in their laps that will make their eyes widen, make them call their friends, make them doubt their preconceived notions.
"Dang, did you just see the Tom and Debbie spot?" they might ask. "I don't know who I'll vote for moving forward, but I feel exactly the same way they do."
And as their minds open, maybe for the first time ever, we have to be there with quality stuff to pour into them. We need candidates who are confident in their conservatism and comfortable in any environment, from a debate stage to "The Daily Show."
We need those candidates to patiently, pleasantly, but boldly point out that the Obama era is simply not working. No I-told-you-so's, no scoreboarding, just a sincere offer of help.
We need a sense of urgency and a sense of humor. When liberals lie about us, we need to call them on it and speak truth.
And we need to do what Democrats have done for years: personalize politics. Every time they try to foist their latest lurch toward socialism, they always find a gaggle of citizens willing to stand behind them to cheer them for caring so much. This has enabled them to fraudulently paint themselves as having our best interests at heart.
In backing our conservative causes, of course we can mention their basis in logic and history. But if we tell people we want to stop the Obama agenda and replace it with fresh ideas based on giving people back their liberty and letting them keep more of their money, that's the kind of thing that changes minds.
The aroma of a wasteful, inept Washington has rarely been more foul. if we play hard and play smart, we can win back the Senate and the White House and start to replace these horrible years with uplifting opportunities to regain our national strengths, at home and abroad.
If we succeed, it will not be because we converted ten million people to conservatism. It will be because we convinced ten million voters that two Obama terms have led to a litany of royal screw-ups, and we know how to fix it.
There will be plenty of time for those folks to slowly discern that conservatism was the source for answers for an ailing economy and a weakened global stature. We need to get them to give us a chance first on a leap of faith. We need to earn that leap of faith.
So, somebody go find Tom and Debbie and shoot that commercial. Today.

Why are so many generals getting the axe? ^ | October 31, 2013 | Michele Hickford

Ever notice how no cabinet members in the Obama Administration are ever fired (the names Holder, Rice, Sibelius spring to mind), but in the last year nine senior generals have been fired? I wonder why that is?
According to a report from The Blaze:
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, said the White House fails to take action or investigate its own, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”
Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”..........
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

We Know What's in It Now and It's Bizarre! ^ | November 1, 2013 | John Ransom

The part of Obamacare that’s supposed to deliver services, as opposed to, say, the IRS portion, the punitive portion, which is supposed toenforce Obamacare, isn’t faring very well.
“After emergency repairs over the weekend,” reports the Associated Press, “consumers in different parts of the country Monday continued to report delays on, as well as problems setting up security questions for their accounts. The administration says the site’s crowded electronic ‘waiting room’’ is thinning out. Still, officials said it will be down again for a few hours starting at 1 a.m. Tuesday for more upgrades and fixes.”
Not so on the IRS side.
They are good to go. So, if you are supposed to receive the blessings of “free healthcare,” you better get blessed now, before the Obamacare police at the IRS come after you.They're prepared.
Really, no one should be surprised that one the one hand the punishment part of Obamacare is thumbs up while the delivery part is thumbs down.
Because this administration is masterful at making sure they have the punitive measures all set to go to cover for the fact that they can’t govern.
Only in Washington DC and only amongst Democrats would this be applauded as success.
Benghazi, the IRS, the Boston Bombing, Fast and Furious: Incompetence—or worse-- followed by punitive measures from an administration that will take any measure, no matter how extreme, to prevent people from talking about how miserable the folks in the White House govern.
And there is one large group of folk who, who more than any others, who has a right to complain.
That group is the very people Obamcare was supposed to help.
You know? The one’s signing up now? Because they've lost the insurance they were supposed to keep.
“Alas, the administration managed to turn the experience for most of those visitors into a nightmare,” writes the USAToday editorial board. “Websites crashed, refused to load, or offered bizarre and incomprehensible choices. Even though the system was shut down for repairs over the weekend, Monday's early reports continued to suggest an epic screw-up.”
The refusal to load web pages for visitors and visitors being offered bizarre and incomprehensible choices?
By a program run by the Obama administration? Heavens no!
Actually it sounds to me like the administration is following the same plan they use for everything they do: the war in Libya, the green energy program, budgeting, the Keystone pipeline, the aborted war in Syria, bank bailouts, Dodd-Frank, Russian-US relations.
Congress is so confused that they ordered the head of the IRS Obamacare police to testify—again.
So, now another IRS official has appeared before Congress to, in the end, say nothing at all.
What part of punitive do you people not understand?
This time however the IRS didn’t invoke the Fifth in an attempt to avoid self-incrimination, as Lois Lerner did.
Lerner you might recall was hauled before Congress and forced to testify about the IRS targeting of Tea Party conservatives. She stood on her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself, and for her efforts received a gold watch and a fat pension from the Obama administration
No, instead this time the IRS talked about the healthcare law that they enforce and that-- not coincidentally-- doesn’t apply to them while they work for the government.
Lisa Ingram, who is overseeing the implementation of the IRS's government snooping relational database disguised as a doctor-- also known as the Obamacare police, said things were going great on her end.
“Our systems have come up on time and operated as planned in turning interactions around,” she told Congress according to Politico. “She also sought to ease Republican concerns about protecting massive amounts of private taxpayer information. If a user’s information is compromised, the IRS can ‘turn off the switch in minutes’ to halt the flow of data, she said.”
Minutes, huh? With response times like that, I’m sure that the numbers of civilian records at risk on these high-processing data machines only measures in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions per incident.
I guess the same person who leaves us hanging on hold for the “next available” agent at the IRS, also controls the kill switch for Obamcare’s IRS.
But no matter. The IRS will do what they are tasked with.
What they are tasked with is punitive. And they are ready.
So, you can cough now, and then continue breathing regularly.
This will be a little uncomfortable before they shut you up.
Your doctor-- or IRS agent-- will see you shortly.
And when that happens, just remember which party demanded Obamacare and which party warned you.

The Best Hospitals Are Opting Out of Obamacare

Breitbart ^ | 11-1-13 | Elizabeth Sheld

Most of the talk about the Affordable Care Act has focused on website glitches and skyrocketing premiums but there are other issues looming on the horizon for the healthcare overhaul. Hospital coverage.
If consumers expect to have (or continue to have) access to the best medical services at the nations top hospitals, they are in for a rude awakening. "Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare."
Because the ACA caps premiums, insurers will be have to offer less money to the nations best doctors and hospitals. In return, the hospitals will simply refuse to accept those insurance plans.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Abuser in Chief

American Thinker ^ | 11-1-2013 | Allan Erickson

There was a time we respected our presidents, for the most part. They in turn served the public interest, at least to some extent. At one time, kids saw presidents as heroes. Presidents generally sought to be unifying forces promoting traditional American values, including respect for the God of love, the flag, and the Constitution. That was before presidents started behaving like abusive husbands, thugs, and merchants of immorality.
Presently, the point is well made considering the debacle known as the ObamaCare. So far, the law is accomplishing the exact opposite of everything promised: all the lies clearly revealed. Instead of kisses, people are receiving punches. Instead of coverage and care, we get slaps and spin. The Abuser in Chief and his operatives keep promising it will never happen again, but next day, same old story. They steal our money and use it to promote promiscuity and fund abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...