Thursday, October 9, 2014

4 ISIS Terrorists Arrested in Texas in Last 36 Hours!

Judicial Watch ^ | October 8, 2014 

Islamic terrorists have entered the United States through the Mexican border and Homeland Security sources tell Judicial Watch that four have been apprehended in the last 36 hours by federal authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety in McAllen and Pharr.
JW confirmed this after California Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine Corp Major and member of the House Armed Services Committee, disclosed on national television that at least ten Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) fighters have been caught crossing the Mexican border in Texas. The veteran lawmaker got the astounding intel straight from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Homeland Security agency responsible for guarding the 1,933-mile southern border.
“If you really want to protect Americans from ISIS, you secure the southern border,” Hunter proclaimed on a national cable news show this week. “It’s that simple. ISIS doesn’t have a navy, they don’t have an air force, they don’t have nuclear weapons. The only way that ISIS is going to harm Americans is by coming in through the southern border – which they already have.” The three-term congressmen went on: “They aren’t flying B-1 bombers, bombing American cities, but they are going to be bombing American cities coming across from Mexico.”
In late August JW reported that Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources confirmed to JW that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.
Back then intelligence officials said they had picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according JW’s sources. “It’s coming very soon,” confirmed a high-level government official who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” Two days after JW’s report ran, Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, implemented increased security measures. The Department of Defense (DOD) attributed the move to vague “security assessments” and the constant concern for the safety of military members, families, employees and civilians.
However, military experts told JW that the increase in security indicates that Ft. Bliss is a target. Military installations in the U.S. only make changes to security measures when there are clear and present threats, according to retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, former commander of the Army’s elite Delta Force who also served four years as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. “That means they’re getting a threat stream. Ft. Bliss had to have a clear and present threat,” Boykin said. Following that news, federal law enforcement sources in El Paso revealed that U.S. CongressmanBeto O’Rourke telephoned the area offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) in an effort to identify—and evidently intimidate—sources that may have been used by JW to break the ISIS in Juarez story.

Not a conspiracy anymore: The left cheers as employers scale back health coverage!

Hotair ^ | 10/08/2014 | Noah Rothman 

Even before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, its conservative critics warned of the perverse incentive contained within the law which could prompt employers to reduce the health benefits they offered to some of their employees.
“Because of the magnitude of the new subsidies created by Congress, the economics become compelling for many employers to simply drop coverage and help their employees obtain replacement coverage through an exchange,” former Tennessee Gov. Philip Bredesen warned in a 2010 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.
“Providing incentives for employers to dump their employees into the exchanges is simply shifting the cost burden to taxpayers,” The Daily Signal’s Alyene Senger cautioned less than two years later. “Whatever the employer-dumping study du jour says, it’s not good for Americans who want to keep their employer-sponsored coverage in the new Obamacare era.”
Citing prominent Democrats like Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who told a Nevada media outlet that the ACA was a way in which the country could begin to “work our way past” the private insurance model, some conservatives charged that Obamacare was designed to kick start the process of dismantling the system of employer-based insurance.
The law’s backers predictably dismissed the concerns of these and other Obamacare critics. Some derided their criticisms charitably as reflective merely of a misunderstanding of basic capitalist incentive structures. Others, who were perhaps less inclined toward charity, derided Obamacare’s Cassandras as mere kooks and conspiracy theorists.
Citing a Modern Healthcare survey of employers in March, 2013, Think Progress blogger Sy Mukherjee observed that only 6 percent of employer respondents planned to transition their employees away from sponsored health coverage. “That assessment stands in stark contrast to some Obamacare opponents’ more outlandish claims,” he wrote. “[C]onversations about Obamacare tend to devolve into varying degrees of hysteria and fear-mongering that aren’t based in the reality of what the reform law will do.” founder and former flagship blogger for The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Ezra Klein, has been perhaps the most prolific author of pieces dismissing the concerns of those who suggest large employers would scale back health benefits.
“Employers offer health insurance because employees demand it,” Klein wrote in the spring of 2013. “If you’re an employer who doesn’t offer insurance and your competitors do, you’ll lose out on the most talented workers. An employer who stopped offering health benefits would see his best employees immediately start looking for other jobs.”
Which is all to say that, for most companies, the Affordable Care Act won’t bring much change at all, and so there’s little reason to expect their behavior will change, either. And if it does change, it might not change in the direction we expect.
It was not long, however, before the unthinkable began to occur.
In January, the retail outlet Target announced that it would stop providing part-time employees with health benefits and would instead direct them to the health care law’s insurance exchanges. Target joined other large employers like Home Depot and Trader Joe’s, which had already announced similar plans to stop giving part-time workers access to employer-provided health benefits. On Tuesday, those large firms were joined by another even larger employer: Walmart.
26,000 part-time Walmart employees will now have to look to the Obamacare exchanges for their coverage. But for the left, which spent the better part of the last five years dismissing this development as unlikely, this is a “great thing!”
That is, at least, the assessment of former Wonkblogger and current analyst Sarah Kliff.
If Walmart doesn’t offer her insurance, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s subsidy calculator shows that she qualifies for a $1,751 subsidy from the federal government to help buy coverage on the exchange. With that financial help, she can buy insurance for as little as an [sic] $7 per month. As a low-wage worker, she gets some of the most generous financial help.
But if Walmart does offer her coverage, it becomes her only option. She doesn’t qualify for federal help and the $7 plan disappears. Walmart’s plan, meanwhile, is way more expensive. The average premium there works out to $111 per month.
For a worker like that, losing health insurance at work doesn’t actually look like a bad deal. Instead, its [sic] a pretty good deal: it gives part-time employees the chance to qualify for way more generous financial help than Walmart would ever offer.
“Yes, there will definitely be some people who earn more at Walmart and get less generous subsides on the exchange,” Kliff conceded. “They could see their premiums increase with this decision. But given that this decision applies only to those who work fewer than 30 hours per week, they are likely lower earners who will be helped rather than hurt.”
Just a few broken eggs in the name of progress, right?
Kliff sounded the same note when Target announced its intention to turn its formerly independent part-time workers into public wards is a great boon to society. “The glass-half-empty reading of Target dropping coverage is that workers are losing access to an employer-sponsored insurance,” she wrote in January. “The half-full interpretation is that many are gaining access to government-subsidized insurance.”
Kliff is coming around to the fact, however, that there is a downside to the infinite enlargement of the number of federal beneficiaries: The unavoidable strain on the public coffers. She observed that Walmart, along with the rest of the large firms dropping benefits for their part-time employees, is “shifting costs over to the government, which will now take on the financial burden of helping to pay for thousands’ of part-time workers’ medical bills.”
But for the very poorest and sickest, being shifted onto the public exchanges will ultimately prove to be a blessing. The only problem with this analysis is that it fails to address the fact that conservatives warned of this condition years ago, and people like Kliff’s employer found their warnings utterly baseless. Keep that in mind while reading their latest attempts at cheerleading on behalf of Obamacare.

Something Obama Will Never Say During Rallies Or Speeches."Anyone Who Wants A Job"!

 by Cruz_West_Paul2016

During the Obama Chicago/Northwestern speech, he touted how well the economy is doing, how his policies have brought us back from the brink, millions of new jobs, etc. Well, if the economy is finally on a roll, why didn't President Obama just say that "Anyone Who Wants A Job Anywhere In The United States, CAN FIND ONE !!" Didn't Reagan or Bush make this statement during the peak years of their presidency?, Yes, we all laughed or gasped when we heard that. Well what about the 93 Million Americans who can't find a job, or gave up looking? Why didn't Obama bring that up during the speech. Maybe he should of done that speech in Suburban Detroit or Any Middle Class town in Massachusetts.

Typical: Obama Hits GOP For Being Party of Billionaires! ^ | October 8, 2014 | Leah Barkoukis 

resident Obama slammed Republicans in an email to supporters on Tuesday, claiming the GOP is in the ‘pocket of billionaires.’ The irony, of course, is that he then went on to attend a number of fundraisers, including one hosted by a billionaire real estate mogul named Rich Richman. Yes, really.

The Daily Mail has the details:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser at Richman's house in Greenwich, Connecticut, cost as much as $32,400 a person, according to the White House.

The other two events, held in New York and sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, cost between $1,000 and $32,400 to attend. […]

The fundraisers on Tuesday brought the total number of money-raising events Obama has attended this year up to 56.

While candidates have hesitated to be seen with the president, the Democratic Party has not been shy about trotting him out at private events hosted by the rich and famous.

Conservative Activist says Karl Rove is ruining the GOP!

Business Insider ^ | October 8, 2014 | Brendan James 

Karl Rove never loved Reagan enough, and for this he cannot be trusted, according to Tea Party activist and columnist L. Brent Bozell III.
In a scathing piece for Politico, Bozell accused Rove of historically opposing every truly conservative leader in the GOP, siding instead with "liberal" and "moderate" factions of the party.
"Rove has never cared about conservatism and has spent his entire career opposing any Republican who might be successful in promoting or implementing a conservative agenda," Bozell wrote.
He rattled off a list of favorable rightwing candidates that Rove has stood against, including Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Rand Paul.
In the most devastating barb, Bozell added that Rove has been designated a sensible conservative by a liberal watchdog.
"This is the same man Media Matters has dubbed the Republican 'voice of reason,'" he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...



Peaceful Viruses


Jim Crow Laws


Just because...




I Blame the Captain !


Nobel Peace Prize


Boots on the Ground!






Ask yourself...


Midterm Madness


A Gun in the Hand


Mission Demolished!