Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Did the White House just inadvertently confirm Obama ID fraud?

American Thinker ^ | 12/24/13 | Jason Kissner 

President Obama's personal data is "not in particular government data bases" so his identity cannot be verified. And this according to White House sources. Huh? What kind of data? And what kind of president cannot have his identity verified. And this little disclosure comes just as Americans are turning off the news to an extent that makes the classic "Friday afternoon data dump" look like publicity-seeking.

Here are some simple questions:

Does Obama file his tax returns by way of sending staff to a DC IRS building?

If not, why not?

Doesn't the integrity of Obama's tax returns relate to security risks?

Or, is Obama's information in IRS databases and not other federal agency databases accessed by HHS?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

The only place fit for them:

Santa Break!

Disposable: Paul Ryan's Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans!

Business Insider ^ | 24 Dec 13 | Tony Carr, John Q. Public 



Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues. In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”
In doing so, he created a painful irony; Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country. In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing.
The military and veteran population stand in awe at Ryan’s explanation. He apparently believes we are not only naive enough not to overlook the gaping moral maw between his words and actions, but also dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning.
If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.
Ryan presents a classic false dilemma. ....
... Ryan admits he seeks to take $100,000 dollars out of the retirement accounts of veterans who earned that money by risking their lives in combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Mr. Ryan obfuscates his purpose by hiding behind Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and his generals, claiming their desire for pension reform vindicates his attempt to extract budgetary savings on the backs of warriors who have just endured the most punishing operations tempo in national history.------------------------------------------------>

Mr. Ryan clearly hoped it wouldn’t be noticed. He now laments being caught red-handed by veterans and their representatives, who now rightly wonder whether Congress has already forgotten what it promised in exchange for a dozen years (and counting) of voluntary misery. The unease now sensed from among the veteran population should be taken as a dire warning: haphazardly breached promises that send the wrong kinds of signals to current and past service members will fundamentally disrupt the eagerness of Americans to serve in the future. Abraham Lincoln said this during the Civil War and it holds true still, especially given the dozen years of abusive management practices that have already ground down our all-volunteer force.

________________________________________________________


This is morally repugnant, but clearly Ryan and his colleagues are more compelled by economic convenience. He thinks veteran pensions are just another lavish government handout to be squeezed in the name of fiscal conservatism.Incredulous, veterans find themselves on the wrong side of socialist impulses undertaken by an avowed counter-socialist; Ryan seems to be saying working age retirees don’t need all that money, so it should be taken from them and given to some other budgetary recipient who needs it more. Ryan has made a career railing against this very thing, saving his lone exception for a most unfortunate notion.
____________________________________________________


Read the entire editorial. It is devastating. Ryan, Cantor, and Boehner better figure out the made a near fatal error - or the GOP is not only going to lose House and Senate seats, it will have lost any pretense of moral standing. 

What is a Capitalist?

American Thinker ^ | 12/08/2013 | Jonathan Moseley 

Are you for or against capitalism? Doesn't that depend on how you define it? If any reader of this publication believed capitalism were an evil, greedy, law-breaking corruption of society, similar to abuses in Pope Francis's native Argentina, he would be against it.
Conservative do not tolerate crony capitalism (that is, government intervention in business).
Most voters -- who cancel out your vote -- have very different ideas than you do. Buried assumptions and widely-varying definitions are being exposed by a recent debate over Christianity, socialism, and capitalism. Controversy sparked by Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation and Rush Limbaugh's criticism has revealed enormous differences in people's assumptions about what the words "capitalism" and "socialism" actually mean.
Your author asserts at the outset that the true definition of a capitalist is anyone who places his capital (money, tools, equipment, property, real estate, etc.) at risk, with no guarantee of making any money or even getting that capital back, in the hopes of earning enough money to pay back the cost of the investment and then go on to earn a profit for his troubles. It can also mean an advocate for such behavior as a preferable national system.
Capitalism is the only approach that can bring prosperity to humanity, especially the poor and disadvantaged, because in free enterprise, businesses cannot force anyone to buy their products or services. Companies must offer products or services that benefit society more than the purchase price or the capitalist will go out of business. This discipline of the marketplace is why government bailouts are poison.
Only transactions which produce a net benefit to society will occur -- others will be blocked by consumer choice. Freedom is the essential ingredient in this magic "invisible hand." As soon as government bails out bad actors or plays favorites,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Administration expands health law exemptions (Pelosi knew)

The Hill ^ | 12/24/13 | Ben Goad 

The Obama Administration on Tuesday proposed new regulations that add to the list of benefits not subject to reforms under the president’s healthcare law.
A draft rule issued jointly by the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury is the latest in a series of tweaks to the Affordable Care Act announced just days before major parts of the law are to take effect.
The regulations, published in Tuesday's Federal Register, amend the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which laid out a category of “excepted benefits.” These include workers compensation or disability coverage, accidental death insurance, auto insurance and other benefits that are related to health but don’t amount to comprehensive health coverage.
Excepted benefits are exempt from the market reforms imposed by ObamaCare, though they don’t satisfy the law’s requirement that individuals obtain coverage, also known as the individual mandate.
"This proposal would give employers and workers more options for their health-care coverage while staying true to the consumer protections put in place by the Affordable Care Act," said Phyllis C. Borzi, Labor Department's Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security.
The administration is expanding the list of excepted benefits to include employee assistance programs (EAP) that are typically free to workers and include short-term substance abuse or mental health counseling, referral services, as well as financial counseling and legal services.
EAPs would be considered excepted if they are free to employees and don’t “provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment,” the agencies said.
Self-insured vision and dental policies and certain supplemental “wraparound” coverage would also be considered excepted.
The rule is designed allow individuals to take advantage of the benefits without risking their eligibility for a premium tax credit for enrolling in qualified health plans through the law’s insurance exchanges.
The action responds to concerns raised by both employers and employees during the administration’s development of the law.
"This is another example of federal agencies listening to public concerns and responding with solutions," Borzi said.

Boehner Doll

Buck Ofama

Obama XMAS Songs

The Worst President!

Layoffs

HELLO!

Thanks!

Ho, Ho, Ho!

Prozac

Offensive Obama

Santa Laughs

Be Careful