Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Archive for the ‘Barry Soetoro (alias Barak Obama)’ Category

Republicans Confront Health Chief on Secret ObamaCare Plan

A Republican House subcommittee chairman is accusing the Obama administration of secretly preparing a fallback strategy if the Supreme Court strikes down a major piece of its healthcare reform law later this year, even as officials publicly maintain that no plan exists.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, says federal officials are hiding a roughly 100-page document on the looming court case. The case, King v. Burwell, could cut off ObamaCare subsidies in three-quarters of states and potentially collapse the national marketplace.

Pitts confronted the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the plan, which he says is being circulated among senior officials, for the first time on Wednesday.

HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said she does not know of a planning document.


“This is a document I’m not aware of,” she said in response to Pitts’s questions, before moving on to outlining the negative affects of a ruling against the law. 

”We believe we do not have any administrative actions,” she reiterated.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) pressed Burwell further.

“I take you at your word that you haven’t seen the plan, but don’t you think it’s prudent that there should be a plan?” he said. “I hope I don’t have a primary opponent, I hope I don’t have a general election opponent, but I have a plan in case I do.”

Burwell held her line.

“We don’t have an administrative action that we could take so the question of having a plan, we don’t have any administrative action that we believe could undo the damage,” Burwell replied.

“The administration is just going to hold up your hands and say we surrender?” Barton added.

“We believe the law as it stands is how it should be implemented,” Burwell replied.

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) repeatedly also pressed Burwell on whether she knew of the planning document. Burwell did not categorically deny its existence, saying only that she does not know of it.

“If there is this document, and you know it, I would certainly like to know about a document, because I don’t have knowledge of a 100-page document,” Burwell said.

When Burwell again dove into the negative affects of a Supreme Court ruling against the law, Lance interrupted, “That’s filibustering.”

“I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to,” Burwell replied.

Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) came to Burwell’s defense, noting that Republicans are supporting the high court challenge.

“It’s somewhat ironic that my Republican friends are demanding that the administration fix problems that they themselves created,” Engel said.

“As the Secretary said at the hearing, we have no plans that would undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision, and we are not aware of a document that meets Chairman Pitts’ description,” an HHS spokesperson said in an email.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment and deferred to HHS.

Burwell this week wrote a letter sent to several GOP offices, including Pitts’s, warning that the administration has no plan to “undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision” in the high court case.

If the Obama administration loses, roughly 7 million people could immediately lose their healthcare coverage. Nearly $30 billion in subsidies could be lost in 2016 alone.

With such high stakes, Republicans say the administration is surely preparing some way to avert disaster.

“It’s hard to fathom that the administration would bury its head in the sand and fail to engage in any contingency planning,” Pitts wrote in a statement Wednesday ahead of the hearing.

“No credible person would believe that,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told The Hill on Wednesday.

“It would be executive malpractice not to have a plan, a contingency plan, for what happens when that court ruling comes down, and I’m going to assume that this government doesn’t practice executive malpractice,” he said.

The administration has already faced strong pressure from Republicans to show its hand ahead of the Supreme Court case.

Burwell’s appearance before the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month erupted into a contentious back-and-forth in which she refused to answer any questions about the court challenge. By the end of the two-hour exchange, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) had accused Burwell of acting in contempt of Congress.

Republicans have seized on the administration’s refusal to discuss the case as further evidence against ObamaCare.

“By admitting they have no contingency plan to assist the millions that may lose subsidies, the administration confirms how the misguided law is unworkable for the American people,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) wrote in a recent statement.

The administration’s silence is likely part of its strategy to influence the court ahead of the March 4 arguments.

Two former HHS officials have previously said they are confident the administration is preparing a backup plan.

“Of course they have one, they should all resign if they don’t,” said Tom Scully, an HHS official under former President George W. Bush. “And they certainly should not discuss it either.”

But the former officials said the administration could appear in a weak position if it admitted that it was making plans. And if the administration insists there is no “plan B,” it tells the justices that the country cannot afford a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Republicans have tried to gain points by preparing their own backup plans for the billions of dollars in subsidies that could be lost. This week, Hatch and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) became the latest Republicans to say they are crafting fallbacks.

The GOP largely agrees that Congress should not simply rewrite the text to make the subsidies legal. But the party lacks a consensus about how to deal with the fallout, both in the short term and long term, and which area of government should be responsible for those fixes.

“Unless those of us who oppose ObamaCare unite behind an approach that offers Americans a better alternative, we could lose the whole war,” Sasse wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published late Wednesday.

–Peter Sullivan contributed to this report, which was updated at 12:23 p.m.

I won a Kenyan lottery.

Talk about luck! According to a recent email from a Nigerian prince I won a Kenyan lottery.

He is holding the sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS in my name, and he wants to send it to me FREE!
ATT00001

All I have to do is give him my bank account numbers and send him $500.00 US dollars in cash, to show my good faith, and he will transfer the money to my bank!

And then I got ANOTHER email. It’s from another Kenyan prince who wants to give me FREE healthcare for life!

ATT00002
All I have to do is give him:

MY BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS,
MY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,
MY CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH INFORMATION
MY NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS
DEPENDENTS AGES AND ANY MEDICINES THEY USE
MY ESTIMATED INCOME FOR 2015
NAME OF MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER
MY USERNAME
MY PIN NUMBER
NAMES OF ALL MEDICINES I’M TAKING
MY INCOME FROM MY IRA
MY SPOUSE’S INCOME FROM HIS IRA
ALL MY TRADING ACCOUNTS
ALL MY OTHER PROPERTIES IF ANY
MY SPOUSE’S SOCIAL SECURITY
And then, if I pay $700 per month for a health insurance policy plan with only a $10,000 deductible, HE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!

​Am I lucky or what!

Obama’s new tax proposals flunk his own distribution test.

Obama298
President Obama is disguising his latest tax increase as “middle-class economics,” no doubt because it sounds better than calling it income redistribution. So it’s instructive that this false political front has already been exposed by no less than the President’s political allies at the Tax Policy Center.

This week the liberal think tank analyzed the tax proposals in Mr. Obama’s State of the Union with one of those familiar distributional tables that attempts to estimate the after-tax results across the U.S. income scale. Surprise, surprise, the middle 20% of earners—people making between $49,000 and $84,000—would see their taxes rise by $7 on average in 2016.

In selling his proposals in Kansas the other day, Mr. Obama said that middle-class economics is about “lowering the taxes for working families by thousands of dollars, putting money back into their pockets so that they can have a little bit of cushion in their lives.” Paying $7 more isn’t much of a cushion.

The same goes for the second and fourth income quintiles. According to the think tank, the taxes of those groups would rise by 0.1% on average. The tax changes of note would come at the bottom and top of the income scale, with a 0.7% average rise in tax liability for the top 20% of earners, and a 1.2% boost in after-tax benefits (largely from tax credits) for the bottom 20%. Mr. Obama’s middle-class economics, in short, applies to everyone but the middle class.

We dislike these distributional analyses, which are typically the weapons liberals use to defeat pro-growth tax reform. The main point of cutting taxes is to help the economy, and to let all taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. It is not to redistribute income. But there is justice in Mr. Obama being hoist on his own distributional gambit because in 2012 he used the Tax Policy Center to attack Mitt Romney ’s tax reform and manipulated the numbers to claim it raised taxes by $2,000 for the average family.

No modern Presidency has been worse for average American incomes than Mr. Obama’s, and his new tax proposals are more of the same.

OBAMA SPENT SUNDAY WATCHING FOOTBALL INSTEAD OF TRAVELING TO PARIS FOR THE MARCH

President Barack Obama and other top members of his administration have snubbed a historic rally in Paris today that brought together more than 40 world leaders from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and even Russia.

‘France is our oldest ally,’ Obama said during a speech Friday in Tennessee. ‘I want the people of France to know that the United States stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow.’

But he wasn’t standing in Paris as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas put aside their differences and linked arms.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov made the same unifying gesture in the march down the Place de la Concorde in defiance of the Islamist terror attacks that rocked the city last week.

According to an administration official, President Obama spent part of his Sunday afternoon watching a National Football League game on television. Both games were broadcast hours after the march. […]

The White House press office also did not respond to a question seeking confirmation that the president was engrossed in the NFL playoffs on Sunday afternoon.

Pat Boone Lowers The Boom On Barack

Well, let’s create a purely hypothetical scenario.
Suppose America elects a charismatic young president who makes all kinds of brave promises and sweeps into the White House. This young man not only has little political or governmental experience, but none at all in business or administration. Curiously, his upbringing is never closely examined or evaluated; it’s just assumed that anybody elected president must love America – but this young man had been trained by parents and others to consider this country a colonial oppressor and unfit to be a world leader! In college, by his own autobiographical account, he sought out Marxist professors, in not one but three colleges.
Once elected, he uses his newfound executive authority to seal off all his early school, passport and travel records, lest his true intents be uncovered. He eventually has a fake “copy of a birth certificate” created and exhibited on the White House website, complete with glaring errors that betray its falsehood. Somehow Congress seems mesmerized and intimidated from confronting him, so he creates a phalanx of legislative “czars” to regulate and virtually stifle all business and energy progress, and these “czars” – among them known Muslim and Marxist and homosexual activists – report not to Congress but directly to him!

Now, in this imagined story, we can add the deliberate dividing of the citizens along racial, economic and political lines. We can add his awarding billions of dollars of speculative contracts to party donors and even family friends. We can toss in his leaving his command post while a U.S. ambassador and other Americans are under fire and eventually dying … to pack his bags and fly to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser. A definite Benedict Arnold comparison.
And, to leave no doubt whatsoever, while our nation is slipping into all-out war against inhuman killers who behead innocent people, this pretender in chief makes the personal decision to release known murderers from a military prison and to send them back to the Mideast, all expenses paid and with no penalty for their crimes, to supposedly “rehab” – and then certainly reassume leadership positions with our murderous enemies. No consultation with, or consent from, Congress. Just his own decision, knowing brave young Americans will face these beasts again in a battle to the death. If there’s a clearer definition of treason, I can’t think of it.
All this is theoretical, of course – but I think if such an interloper and subversive impostor were to somehow arise and become our president, if he weren’t eventually exposed, prosecuted and impeached, America should apologize to Benedict Arnold.
And his picture should be posted in Webster’s alongside the words “treason” and “traitor.”

Obama Refuses To Blame Islamic Terrorism For Attack In Paris

President Obama Makes Statement On The Sequestration

by Javier Manjarres

It goes without saying that barbaric radical Islamists don’t have any regard for the lives of innocent human beings, but to even show such disregard for the lives of their fellow terrorists, is music to my ears.

The terrorist attack in Paris by Islamists, who indiscriminately shot and killed journalists and police, including one wounded and unarmed Paris police officer, who could be seen on video pleading for his life before being shot and killed in cold blood.

While President Obama, his handlers, and spokespeople, refuse to name this attack as an attack by radical Islam, other U.S. politicians, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R), are calling the Paris attack for what it really is, an act of Islamic terrorism.

Just a couple days before the attack in Paris, the Islamic State’s (ISIS) deputy emir of the groups al-Hesbah, which is the equivalent to the Nazi SS or Gestapo, was found beheaded with a cigarette in his mouth.

ISIS has beheaded Egyptian-born Abu Zaid al-Masri, their former “beheader”, for apparently breaking Sharia law by continuing to smoking.

The corpse showed signs of torture and carried the message “This is evil, you Sheikh” written on it. The severed head also had a cigarette in its mouth. It is unclear who carried out the decapitation but the message was obvious.

Islamic State’s (formerly known as Isis) ban on cigarettes is one of its signature polices. It has imposed a strict set of Sharia laws barring the use of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes in the territories it has conquered across a swathe of Iraq and Syria.
IS has declared smoking “slow suicide” and demands that “every smoker should be aware that with every cigarette he smokes in a state of trance and vanity is disobeying God”.-Source
IS is doing the western world a favor by taking out their own people, but don’t expect their strict enforcement of Sharia Law to deter Islamists from joining their ranks.

The U.S. and its allies need to combat these Islamists with overwhelming military and intelligence might. There isn’t any other alternative.

“Ground and pound” needs to be the course of action that allies have to subscribe to and enforce when dealing with these kinds of Islamists.

Read more at http://shark-tank.com/2015/01/07/obama-refuses-to-blame-islamic-terrorism-for-attack-in-paris/

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !