Here comes the ObamaCare tax avalanche

From: Human Events

By: John Hayward - 12/27/2013


At its core, ObamaCare is three things: a massive expansion of Medicaid; a set of complex mandates to control both insurance providers and customers; and the largest tax increase in a generation, much of it levied against the middle class. Because it is politically vital to hide tax increases from the Sainted Middle Class, much of this burden is hidden as pass-through taxation – you think your premiums are increasing, but it’s really an income redistribution scheme with the tax burden laid on insurance providers, who pass it along to you. This has the enormous political benefit of diverting public anger over increased premiums against the insurance providers, rather than the government, which is something the former should have considered more carefully before hopping into bed with the latter, visions of mandatory commerce dancing in their heads.

ObamaCare also includes quite a few explicit tax increases, which were delayed until they would not jeopardize Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. The most obvious of these taxes is the individual mandate – certified as a 100 percent bona fide tax by the Supreme Court, in the decision that allowed ObamaCare to exist at all. President Obama has seized the extraordinary new power to selectively delay this tax for certain people – a precedent that will prove interesting if the next President also wishes to waive taxes by executive fiat. Perhaps we should add a fourth core component of ObamaCare: it rewrote the Constitution, in the manner of a computer virus corrupting an operating system.

But some people certainly are going to pay that individual mandate tax next year, and it’s far from the only tax hike coming our way in 2014. The New York Post runs them down, and reports that at least one insurance provider has decided not to keep them safely hidden:

Most insurers aren’t advertising the ObamaCare taxes that are added on to premiums, opting instead to discretely pass them on to customers while quietly lobbying lawmakers for a break.

But one insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, laid bare the taxes on its bills with a separate line item for “Affordable Care Act Fees and Taxes.”

The new taxes on one customer’s bill added up to $23.14 a month, or $277.68 annually, according to Kaiser Health News. It boosted the monthly premium from $322.26 to $345.40 for that individual.

You remember Obama telling you that your tax bill would shoot up by over $275 a year under his plan, don’t you? No? You remember the exact opposite - passionate, repeated vows that taxes on the Sainted Middle Class wouldn’t be raised by a dime? Call it Obama’s Third Big Lie, after “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

What’s in that hearty salad of new taxes, New York Post?

The new taxes and fees include a 2 percent levy on every health plan, which is expected to net about $8 billion for the government in 2014 and increase to $14.3 billion in 2018.

There’s also a $2 fee per policy that goes into a new medical-research trust fund called the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Insurers pay a 3.5 percent user fee to sell medical plans on the HealthCare.gov Web site.

But wait, there’s more!

Americans also will pay hidden taxes, such as the 2.3 percent medical-device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.

Those with high out-of-pocket medical expenses also will get smaller income-tax deductions.

Americans are currently allowed to deduct expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their annual income. The threshold jumps to 10 percent under ObamaCare, costing taxpayers about $15 billion over 10 years.

High out-of-pocket expenses, you say? Hey, wait a second… don’t those newfangled “Affordable” Care Act plans feature enormous deductibles? Why, I’ll bet a whole lot of Sainted Middle Class folks are going to get stuck with a bigger tax bill next year because of that. Shucks, you’d almost think it was a deliberate deception to hide yet another tax increase from them.

And of course, ObamaCare includes a tax leveled specifically at “millionaires,” a term redefined by the Democrat Party to mean people who earn $200,000 a year or more:

Under ObamaCare, individual tax filers earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 will pay an added 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on top of the existing 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax. They’ll also pay an extra 3.8 percent Medicare tax on unearned income, such as investment dividends, rental income and capital gains.

A new tax on capital gains smuggled into the “health care” bill… that’s just what a weak economy struggling to emerge from the endless Obama non-recovery needed.

Instead of ruining so many people’s lives with poorly written mandates and blowing billions of dollars on bug-riddled federal and state exchange websites, Obama could have been honest in 2009 and simply proposed a huge Medicaid expansion, plus the tax increases needed to fund it. But that level of honesty is anathema to socialists. Their schemes always have to be dressed up as technocratic masterworks, brilliant plans that will not only fix the problems they love to exaggerate – in this case, the number of Americans who were involuntarily uninsured – but restructure and improve everyone’s life, at no cost to the Sainted Middle Class.

Obama’s Big Lies were designed to fool voters into thinking ObamaCare would be essentially voluntary – you’d be able to keep everything the way it was if you wanted to. You probably wouldn’t want to, because ObamaCare would be so super-awesome that its plans would go flying off the virtual shelves, but if you weren’t sold on entering the system, you could keep your old plan and your preferred health care providers.

In reality, none of that is true, and you wont’ be able to escape the ObamaCare tax avalanche, either. This is just the beginning, too. Wait until insurance companies caught in the death spiral of expensive, older, sicker customers buying Affordable Care Act policies, while the young and healthy take a pass on their planned shakedown, causes the industry to come looking for a bailout… which will probably be financed with deficit dollars… which will turn into irresistible demands for tax increases in a couple of years. Wait until the federal government pulls the Medicaid rug out from beneath your state, obliging the state government to soak you for more tax revenue. Wait until an army of desperate low-income ObamaCare policy holders begins crying out for relief from their huge deductibles, shaken at last from the delusion that Obama was going to give them “free medicine.”

Every fountain of government benefits is also a siphon into taxpayer wallets. In 2014, the ObamaCare siphon will begin rumbling to life. In the years to follow, you’ll be amazed at how hard it can suck.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Confront Obama’s Tyranny: General Calls for Massive March on Washington

The retired American military commander who earlier said in a statement released to WND that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.

The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials no.

The result was that the Egyptian Muslim Brother was removed from power and then-President Mohammed Morsi was removed from office, Vallely explained.

His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.

He was asked whether America can be restored as the shining light on the hill for freedom when the electoral process, which resulted in two presidencies for Obama in 2008 and 2012, “are known to be corrupt.”

Vallely said the absence of leadership in the White House and Congress makes it difficult, and he said, “I’m not even sure our traditional process will straighten our government out in time to save us.”

And he said processes like impeachment simply won’t happen.

Then he suggested the Egyptian model, and he said millions of Americans need to “stand up” to Washington “within the next 12 months.”

He said doing nothing is not an option, because Washington won’t fix itself and “hope is not a strategy.”

“We need something … a no confidence vote,” he suggested. And perhaps legislation that could create a national recall process.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington,” he said. “Make citizens arrests.”

He said when there are those who are “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws,” it should not be overlooked.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

Vallely has been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other things, they cite the Obamacare law, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

In a statement earlier to WND, Vallely said a vote of no confidence could be used.

The founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, said:

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.’”

Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”

Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.

Vallely believes impeachment likely wouldn’t lead to conviction and doesn’t solve the problem, anyway.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”

The Constitution can be amended without going through Congress, he pointed out, but it would take too much time, “a luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic.”

“That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. … Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route,” he said.

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama’s broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

- His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)
- His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
- To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)
- To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)
- And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
- His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)
- To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)
- His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent  for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
- To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
- To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)
- To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
- His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
- Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)
- To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)
- To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)
- To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)
- That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
- And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
- And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)
- Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
- And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Vallely quoted commentator Andrew C. McCarthy, who said that “absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. … and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”

Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a “recall” at the federal level, “there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all the reasons stated in such a resolution.”

He warned of growing “tyrannical centralized rule” without action.

There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution?

“Obama is still the president, and his Cabinet and appointees still remain in power. … Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” Vallely said.

“When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley’s concerns earlier this month.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe.

The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”
Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/u-s-general-calls-for-massive-march-on-congress-white-house/#5WOHJH9cmZbjYkrY.99

Grinch Still Trying to Steal Christmas

From: Creators.com

by - Phyllis Schlafly


  The Grinch was a bitter, grumpy hermit who tried to steal Christmas from kids in a famous 1950s children's story. Unfortunately, the Grinch has reemerged to try to take Christmas away from schoolchildren.

The Grinch is so nasty today that his actions could be prosecuted under our hate crime laws. The law defines hate crimes as those characterized by hate, or even bias, committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of religion and ... you know the other protected categories.

All over the country, Grinches masquerading as school superintendents have been banning the traditional singing of Christmas carols and nativity displays, and insisting the word "winter" be substituted every time the word Christmas is used (e.g., "winter vacation").

The Grinch ignores the fact that federal law makes Christmas a national holiday. There are no laws or even court decisions that prohibit schoolchildren from singing Christmas carols.

The superintendent at Bordentown Regional School District in New Jersey ordered that "religious music should not be part of the elementary programs." So songs about Frosty, Rudolph and mommy kissing Santa Claus can be sung at the school's "winter" concert, but not songs about the Infant Jesus or even "Silent Night."

Grinches at Osgood Intermediate School in Kings Park, N.Y., used a different tactic of censoring words out of "Silent Night" before fifth-graders were allow to sing it. Edited out were "holy infant," "Christ the Savior is born" and "'round yon virgin, mother and child." The school's principal has since apologized for this travesty.

The Grinch has even imposed his anti-Christian extremism on U.S. judges. A federal judge in San Diego just ordered the famous 43-foot-tall Mount Soledad Cross to be dug up and removed from a veterans' memorial, where it has been honored since 1913.

Although the cross is certainly a Christian symbol, the memorial is surrounded by symbols of other faiths, such as 18 Stars of David. The cross is also surrounded by 3,000 granite plaques honoring individual heroes from all our wars.

In 2004, Congress passed a law dedicating this cross as a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces "who sacrificed their lives in the defense of the United States." In 2006, the federal government took title to the property.

Government support of the cross diminished after Barack Obama became president.

Obama has given repeated examples of his aggressive campaign to make us a scrupulously secular nation, such as omitting the words "under God" from his recitation last month of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address for a PBS documentary.

The military is getting the message that it must be in harmony with the secularist bias of the commander-in-chief. The Grinch, under the name Military Religious Freedom Foundation, showed up at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to complain about a nativity display set up by a group of volunteers in the base's chapel.

The Air Force took the nativity scene down within two hours and 15 minutes of being contacted. Who knew the Air Force would so promptly obey orders from protestors?

Extraordinarily fast action also resulted when the U.S. Navy announced this week that it will remove two nativity displays from dining halls at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base because 18 service members sent an email to alert the Grinch at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

The commanding officer said, "No one's ever complained to me about it. We've been doing it for 19 years," but he promptly removed the nativity displays and moved them to the chapel.

Two Baptist chaplains said they were forced out of a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program after they refused orders to stop praying in the name of Jesus and quoting the Bible. They were subjected to ridicule and harassment that led to one of the chaplains leaving the program and the other being ejected. They are now suing.

The one-year training program is required for anyone wanting to work as a VA hospital chaplain. The San Diego trainer is openly hostile to Christianity; the lawsuit accuses her of instructing chaplains to not pray in the name of Jesus or quote from the Bible. It tells you all you need to know about the trainer's bias when the lawsuit reports that she told the class she believes God could be either man or woman.

Ho! Ho! Ho! The Grinch is getting nowhere in Texas. Its legislature almost unanimously passed the "Merry Christmas Law" requiring schools to allow traditional Christmas festivities, including songs, trees, nativity scenes, the colors red and green and the now-controversial words "Merry Christmas."


God bless,
and Merry Christmas,
JohnnyD

Tough Medicine: One Solution to the Problem of Barack Obama

From: Clash Daily

By Allan Erickson / 24 December 2013


After today’s presidential press conference, it is more pressingly obvious than ever: Barack Obama must be removed from office immediately, if this country is to recover and become again the defender of liberty at home and abroad. As long as the Failure in Chief remains in office, there is no hope of recovery, and little hope for liberty.

We cannot wait a year betting Congress will bring impeachment proceedings. We need a guaranteed plan of action, now.

People are running around trying to get voters to turn out next year so Republicans can hold the House and gain control of the Senate, as if this will solve the problem of Barack Obama. It won’t. He will just skirt Congress, ignore the Courts and the Constitution, veto any reasonable reforms, and “govern” via czars, executive orders and lawlessness.

Others have said the solution is a constitutional convention to assert the powers of the people and the states to rein in this out of control interloper. It won’t work. There are too many risks involved, and too much time required.

Some hold out hope that scandals will catch up to this criminal, or that the birth certificate issue will cook his goose. With half the population as uncaring as the lapdog media, these options don’t hold promise either.

A growing number call for a military insurrection or citizen revolt, but let’s be realistic: any suggestion that we remove this man from office by lawless acts or violent intervention is stupid, doomed to failure. In the name of preserving the rule of law we contemplate breaking the law, risking military dictatorship, and forever losing civilian control of the military? Destroying liberty in the name of saving it is Obama’s methodology across the board.

We have reached critical mass. The economy is on the brink of another collapse behind spending, debt, and the demise of the dollar. Enemies foreign and domestic are stronger and more dangerous than ever. Allies flee, adversaries plot, insecurity looms, and domestic unrest is a certainty. When it hits the fan, it will be the worst situation Americans have ever faced.

If we are to avoid this catastrophe (or at least minimize it) and set right the sails of state, Obama must be removed from power, immediately, and there is only one way to accomplish this, legally, and expeditiously. It will require courageous leadership in Congress, a miracle in itself.

This president funded the Muslim Brotherhood which fomented revolution in Egypt, toppling our ally, and causing mayhem and murder. The Muslim Brotherhood is a sworn enemy of the United States, the organization most responsible for global terrorism, the mother of Al Qaeda.

This president funds Al Qaeda operations in Syria. Al Qaeda in Syria is roasting people alive, beheading people, and murdering children using chemical weapons. Al Qaeda is a sworn enemy of the United States.

The President of the United States is funding and aiding the sworn enemies of the United States. That is the very definition of treason. In Washington’s day, this man would be facing a firing squad.

Either we demand Obama be charged with treason, and make a commitment to see this through, immediately, or this man will destroy our country and the future for our kids and grandchildren.

Article III the Constitution states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The only questions remaining are: who will bring charges, and who will testify?


God bless,
JohnnyD

IT IS, WHAT IT IS ......

After reading through the European and Middle East newspapers this past weekend the key words in the headlines seem to be Terrorism and Islam which got me thinking!

TERRORISLAM

it is, what it is....

I now have a decal on the back window of my car.

God bless,

JohnnyD

Is President Obama 'too big to jail?'

From: Fox News

By Wayne Allyn Root / December 16, 2013


A Chinese proverb says, “May you live in interesting times.” We certainly do. Historians will look back on this time as “the Obama criminal years.”

How lawless is the Obama administration? Many of the dirty deeds and scandals of Obama & Co. are public knowledge. Let’s start with the most astonishing.

Many citizens are aware that because of ObamaCare, millions of Americans are losing their health care coverage. Is this incompetence, or criminal fraud?

One thing is certain: it would be fraud if a private sector CEO knew that millions of customers would lose their insurance, yet repeated the same lie over and over -- “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Period.”

Why would we not hold a politician to the same standard?

That brings up the question “IS THIS PRESIDENT TOO BIG TO JAIL?”

But this fraud isn’t just about money and power. It’s about cancer patients, our fellow citizens who may lose their lives as well as their health care coverage because of ObamaCare.

Even innocent children with cancer are among the victims of ObamaCare.

Yes, it turns out ObamaCare is one big death panel. With their policies being cancelled, these sick Americans are losing the very doctors, hospitals and treatments that have kept them alive.

What if some of them die from the stoppage of treatment? What if some die from stress and worry? What if some commit suicide from depression?

These are complicated questions. But isn’t the person whose lies and misrepresentations harmed them, at least partly responsible for their deaths?

So, IS THIS PRESIDENT TOO BIG TO JAIL?

This president has no shame. How many Americans know that a cancer patient merely discussing the disastrous ramifications of ObamaCare in public (thereby embarrassing Obama), is now being persecuted by the IRS?

Yes, it’s true. Bill Elliott is that terminally-ill cancer patient. He was audited by the IRS within days of an appearance on Fox News.

The IRS scandal is far more widespread than the American public knows. It is not just about Tea Party groups.

The IRS was used by Obama to go after any citizen daring to criticize him in the national media.

I’m one of those victims. These actions by a president are absolutely criminal. Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment included the exact same charge of using the IRS to punish critics and silence free speech. But terminally ill cancer patients?

Obama has sunk to new lows. I'm a big boy. What he did to critics like me is disgusting and un-American. But what he did to a terminally ill cancer patient is disgraceful and unimaginable. This president is an out-of-control bully, pure and simple.

Will anyone show the courage to investigate and prosecute Obama?

“IS THIS PRESIDENT TOO BIG TO JAIL?”

But wait (as late night infomercial pitchmen like to say), “There’s more.” When the citizens went to the "state of the art" ObamaCare web site for help, to try to save themselves, they found it defective.

It turns out the website was built so poorly, the personal information of consumers can be easily stolen. And it’s not just online scam artists we’re worried about. The “Obama navigators” themselves might do the stealing -- after all, it turns out many of them have criminal records.

Rather than hiring one of many highly-qualified American high tech Internet companies, why would Obama give a NO BID contract for hundreds of millions of dollars to a firm with less than stellar credentials?

Surely the reason couldn’t be that it’s the firm of one of Michelle Obama’s Princeton Black Alumni Association buddies?

Don’t you wonder how many of those millions of taxpayer dollars are committed to Democrat causes, or are now sitting in a Swiss bank account?

Can you imagine if this happened at a private sector company?

Can you imagine the outrage and criminal accusations coming from consumer protection advocates?

Can you imagine how quickly the federal government would shut down the business?

The criminal would have been “perp walked” out of his office in front of waiting journalists and photographers. He’d be facing a lifetime in prison.

So, “IS THIS PRESIDENT TOO BIG TO JAIL?”

As bad as it is, ObamaCare is just another of the nonstop scandals of this administration. Any one of these scandals would have already forced a Republican president out of office. Obama owns all of them.

Benghazi. More absurd lies than ObamaCare, a possible arms deal with rebels gone bad, and the cover-up of murder.

Fast and Furious. Another government arms deal gone bad, responsibility for the murder of a U.S. border guard, another blatant cover-up.

The NSA scandal. Obama listens into all of our calls and communications. I hope he’s listening to mine. He’ll hear the word IMPEACHMENT come up in every sentence.

The AP scandal. Obama and paranoid buddies like Attorney General Eric Holder are even illegally spying on their adoring Kool-Aid drinking friends in the media.

The IRS scandal. It’s not just about targeting his political opposition. It’s about the much more serious scandal of using the IRS to change the outcome of the election. Obama’s goal was to neutralize the powerful Tea Parties to prevent a repeat of the 2010 GOP landslide.

Guess what? It worked.

Obama used the IRS to kill conservative momentum, intensity, and enthusiasm, silence criticism in the media, and starve conservative fundraising. These guys put the "thug" in Chicago.

The Census Bureau scandal. It appears government employees faked the unemployment numbers in the weeks leading up to the election to re-elect a president who wouldn’t know what a job looked like, if it hit him in the face.

How could one leader be involved in this many lies, frauds, scandals, and cover-ups? There’s enough here for a century of presidents!

Forget impeachment, it’s time for criminal prosecution. There’s enough here to put a CEO away for multiple life sentences. Bernie Madoff would blush at what Obama has pulled off (so far).

The question is, “IS THIS PRESIDENT TOO BIG TO JAIL?”


God bless,
JohnnyD

Anyone Who Promotes ObamaCare is a Racist and Here's Why

From: Godfather Politics

by Common Constitutionalist - December 4, 2013


Remember back a year or two? All we heard were complaints by the left that racism was driving the Republican effort for new “more restrictive” voter ID laws. How the poor and minority communities would be effectively locked out of the 2012 elections.

In April 2012, a guy wrote a piece on the website “Sojourners.” Their motto: Faith in Action for Social Justice. That’s not scary!

The author explained:

“People concerned about the new voter laws contend that the ID requirements erect an unnecessary barrier for some voters, which raises an obvious question: why is it so difficult for some people to get a photo ID? After all, you just pop down to the motor vehicle bureau, show your birth certificate or passport and a few utility bills from your house to prove your stable address, and voilà! But for many people, it’s not quite so easy, starting with the birth certificate, which many poor people and recent immigrants may not have at their fingertips. And, of course, people without photo IDs don’t have drivers licenses, and likely don’t have a car, so getting to government offices-especially in rural areas without public transportation-can be a complicated, time-consuming process…”

There’s this from the website “Universal Free Press” from just a few days ago regarding proposed new voter ID laws: “Ohio representative Marcia Fudge (Democrat) wrote a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder last week asking him to look over two proposed voting measures she claims are intended to ‘suppress the voting rights of African-Americans and other minorities.’ ‘I am concerned about restrictive legislation concerning voter identification … and seek your assistance.’”

Obviously there are many hundreds if not thousands of complaints all across the Internet. The theme is always the same: If you are for the requirement of an ID to vote, you are a racist.

So that got me thinking. I wonder what is required of poor minorities to sign up for Obamacare, for surely, I thought, they must have taken into account all the minorities without identification.

I found just a site that would tell me at laborcenter.berkeley.edu.

Evidently, if you are a poor minority, Medicaid (free healthcare) is for you. You will first have to access the Obamacare online marketplace.

What, you are a poor minority without a computer? Well bub, you’re out of luck.

But let’s say you could get online, and let’s say the site was actually functioning (stop laughing, you racist).

Once you’re in, you must fill out a “simple three page application” to determine if you are indeed poor enough to access Medicaid.

Great news, you are poor enough!

So now you must go to your local Social Security, social services, or health department office.

Providing you can make it there, you may be wondering if there’s anything you may need to bring with you?

Here’s a list:

1. Birth certificate or passport

2. A power or light bill showing your address

3. Something that shows your Social Security number

4. A recent paycheck or tax return

5. Let’s see; did I forget anything? Oh that’s right … A PHOTO ID!!

Now I could rant and rave about what blankety-blankin’ hypocrites all these leftists are, but I think the point has been made.

Anyone who is in favor of or promotes Obamacare is a racist! Therefore, Obama is a racist.

That was easy.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Dem Gubernatorial Candidate Demands Obama ID Fraud be Investigated by Congress

From: Freedom Outpost

By Tim Brown on Dec 12, 2013


Democrat candidate for Michigan governor Mark McFarlin has recently called for Congress to investigate Barack Obama’s fraudulent documents. In a recent radio interview, he went on to say that Obama’s original birth records should be released, and an international team of experts should have access to determine their authenticity.

McFarlin believes that Obama has waived his right to privacy in the matter when he assumed the office of President. He also believes that Bill and Hillary Clinton were the first “birthers,” as he references them as those who first looked in the background of Barack Obama back in 2007. McFarlin made reference to a friend of the Clinton’s who was murdered as they were making a big deal of this back in 2008. This was also referenced in the interview that Jerome Corsi did with Bettina Viviano, who had an insider’s view of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

The person McFarlin was referencing was a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, who was killed on August 13, 2008. Gwaltney was shot three times by a man that entered the Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and was subsequently killed by police after a chase. No move was ever found, but one obviously questions whether it was to send a signal to Bill and Hillary to back off.

Both Viviano and McFarlin believe that the Clintons got the message, because both said that the Clintons from then on out, simply became quiet about the matter. In fact, Viviano said that it also led to a threat on the life of the Clinton’s daughter Chelsea.

Mr. McFarlin said that an international team needs to be compiled to examine the long form birth certificate in Hawaii, if it exists. Israeli Scientists, as well as Lord Christopher Monckton have already come to the conclusion that the Obama birth certificate is a forgery. Obama’s own attorney even took a similar stance as she argued it couldn’t be used to keep him off the ballot in New Jersey. Sheriff Joe Arpaio said that the Obama birth certificate issue was a “national security issue.” McFarlin believes that a thorough investigation of the actual document, not a copy, could go a long way in authenticating the document. So far, all we have seen is a computer generated image, and that is questionable at best.

According to McFarlin, the Clintons did their homework on Obama’s background prior to the 2008 campaign. They would have had to in order to know their opponent. This is why they can be said to be the first birthers.

“We need to look at the original birth certificate,” McFarlin said. “Until we do that, we cannot determine whether this (the image of the birth certificate offered by the White House) is real or not.”

McFarlin simply wants to verify whether or not fraud is taking place. I think most people who have examined the evidence thus far, which is readily available would conclude that there is reason to question whether or not Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, is eligible for the office of President of the United States.

The host asked McFarlin if he would release his own college records as he is running for office. Without hesitation, McFarlin said that he would because to him, “it’s no big deal.”

He went on to make the point that whether Obama got an “A,” “B,” or a “C” wasn’t an issue. What he believes, like many of us do, is that the records may contain evidence of his attending college as a foreigner. Surely Obama’s college records are not part of national security, though they may be sealed in order to protect the guilty.

McFarlin also was asked about Obama’s Selective Service form, which was ran in a full page ad, in the Washington Time weekly paper, on Monday.

The Michigan gubernatorial candidate made specific mention of the fact that Obama is the only person with a two digit date on his Selective Service form.

Mr. McFarlin said that he would compare the questions surrounding Barack Obama and his past, along with the fraudulent documents to the Warren Report that was issued following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He said, “It’s been fifty years since the Kennedy assassination, and they are still hiding. We need to look at this (Obama’s documents) now. The US legislature has to act upon this, because if they don’t act upon this, I’m afraid that what will happen is that they will bury it.”

There’s much more in the interview, but I consider this a pretty big deal that a Democrat, who is running for the governorship of Michigan, is willing to say this needs to be seriously investigated by Congress. What do you think?


God bless,
JohnnyD


 

Stunning hypocrisy from Democrats in wake of ObamaCare's broken promises

From: Fox News

By Scott Brown -December 03, 2013

 Hypocrisy and double standards are two things that disgust and infuriate all Americans, regardless of where they fall on the ideological spectrum.

Unfortunately, these qualities are far too prevalent in our political culture today, and are prime reasons why Washington and the politicians that work there are held in such low regard.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the implementation and implosion of ObamaCare.

During the debate over the deeply flawed bill in 2009 and 2010, voters were repeatedly assured by President Obama and his congressional allies that everyone who liked their current health care plan would be able to keep it. “Period.”

Now, as the new law implodes before our eyes, millions of Americans have received letters of cancellation. With approximately five million people across the country expected to lose their current plan and millions more to follow, when all the smoke clears, it’s clear that the Democrats broke their promise to the American people.

Many other Americans are experiencing fewer medical options as insurers restrict their choice of doctors and hospitals in order to keep costs low.

Some of the country’s top medical facilities are being excluded from the new exchange system, meaning patients who have been getting treatment from doctors they like all of a sudden find themselves out of luck.

For example, in New Hampshire, only 16 of the state’s 26 hospitals are available on the federal exchange, meaning patients must either pay more to keep their current doctor or seek inferior care elsewhere.

Neither is a good option.

New Hampshire is not alone. Across the country, some of the best hospitals are not available on plans on the exchange, leaving patients with difficult choices and unwanted sometimes, life threatening decisions.

Rather than join with Republicans and immediately repeal this catastrophe before it gets any worse, Democrats are stubbornly digging in their heels.

They know that backing away from President Obama’s signature achievement would be a huge embarrassment for the White House, and they’re unwilling to buck their party leadership.

Instead, they’re hiding behind meaningless show votes in Congress, offering half-hearted and meaningless attempts to reinstate cancelled plans or delay implementation of some of the particularly onerous new federal regulations.

All these false efforts will do is add to the increased costs and put things off until after the 2014 elections.

No one is mistaking these transparent moves as profiles in courage.

ObamaCare became the law of the land because every single Democratic Senator fell in line with their party bosses and voted for it. For any sitting member of the Senate to somehow now suggest that they are fighting to protect their constituents from this “trainwreck” is completely hypocritical.

If they were really interested in sparing their constituents from ObamaCare’s harmful impact, they should have stood up when they could have stopped the whole thing from becoming law.

They could have also voted to allow for the protection or “grandfathering” of the older policies.

They did neither.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that politicians in Washington have access to many special perks and privileges unavailable to the general public when attempting to navigate ObamaCare.

Beyond having more top-flight plans to choose from, senators have access to what the New York Times recently described as “concierge-type services” and “in-person support sessions” available only to members of Congress.

Democrats who voted for ObamaCare are therefore not exposed to the same frustrations of a broken website and complicated red tape that millions of everyday people are being forced to work through.

The hypocrisy is stunning. Saddling the rest of the country with complicated rules they didn’t want and don’t need in pursuit of a health care takeover that will hurt patient care, limit options and devastate our economy is no way to run a country.

Not only is President Obama to blame here, so too are every single one of the Democratic senators who forced this fiasco on the American people.

The president is not going to face voters again, but his congressional enablers and supporters will in less than a year. When they do, it’s going to be an unpleasant experience for any incumbent having to explain their deciding vote and continued support for the ongoing disaster of ObamaCare.

Scott Brown is a Fox News contributor. He served as Republican Senator from Massachusetts from 2010-13. While in the Senate he served as a ranking member on Armed Services, Government Regulations/Homeland Security and as a member of the Veteran's and Small Business Committees. Follow him on Twitter 


God bless,
JohnnyD

Obama's Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic

From: Forbes

By M. Northrop Buechner - 11/19/2013


Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.

The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.

By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and—since this is a principle—not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.

The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?

The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).

Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.

If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.

Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address—Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.

Ignoring two centuries of practice, President Obama made four recess appointments in January 2012, when the Senate was not in recess. Three courts have found that his appointments were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court finds against him, what will Mr. Obama do?

We can get a hint by looking at how other parts of his Administration have dealt with Court decisions they did not like.

The Attorney General’s Office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” behavior to a “reasonable person.” In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct,” even if it is not objectively offensive—thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man’s request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.

The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama administration is manifest. They feel bound by the Court’s decisions only if they agree with them. If they disagree, it is deuces wild; they will embrace any fiction that nullifies the Court’s decision.
The direction in which Mr. Obama is taking us would make possible the following scenario. A Republican Congress is elected and repeals Obamacare over a Democratic President’s veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President’s refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces that ruling and refuses to be bound by it.

If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. Whatever side that was, our national self-esteem would be unlikely to recover from the blow of finding that we are living in a banana republic.

The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?

Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country—implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country—an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.

What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?

Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country from his teachers. A fair country is an unfree country because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Their ideal is egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer than anyone else. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities. Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they have their marching orders.

The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.

Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”

We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”


God bless,
JohnnyD

Obama's 'clandestine' plan to make bullets vanish

Allen West warns of back-door attack on guns

 From: World Net Daily

December 2, 2013

Former U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is joining the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to warn about a back-door attack on the Second Amendment by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

In a column posted on his website Sunday, West wrote about the Doe Run company’s lead-producing plant in Herculaneum, Mo., which is being forced to close after the EPA required it to spend up to $100 million on upgrades.

Doe Run, the last primary lead smelter in the United States, has been around since 1892 but is closing on Dec. 31.

West accused Obama of using the EPA to advance “backdoor gun control … while we are all distracted with Obamacare and Iran nuclear negotiations.”

West argued the Obama administration’s “new extremely tight air-quality restrictions” have led to the end of lead as the primary metal in bullets — making ammunition much more expensive and less accessible and leaving America no choice but to turn to overseas operations to produce lead bullets, a situation West says is akin to a federal power grab on guns.

“Come 2014, all ammunition sold to civilian gun owners in America will have to be imported, a result of President Obama’s crackdown on sulfur dioxide and lead emissions and accompanying harsh Environmental Protection Agency regulations,” wrote West.

“[This] will surely increase the price and possibly come under government control,” Mr. West warned, according to a Breitbart.com report. “It seems this is fully in concert with the U.S. military and Homeland Defense recent purchase of large quantities of ammunition.”

He said the “chilling effect” is that while the closure of the smelt plant doesn’t take guns out of the hands of Americans, it does put in jeopardy ammunition supplies.

As the largest lead producer in North America, Doe Run was embroiled in a decade-long battle between angry parents, government regulators and environmentalists, who argued the plant was responsible for high levels of lead in the blood of children in the area, according to an August story on Mid-Missouri Public Radio.

The battles over contamination in the town pitted neighbor against neighbor and culminated in a flurry of lawsuits. One of them singled out the EPA and forced the federal government to revise the national air pollution standard for lead, tightening it by a factor of ten.
The NRA-ILA issued a press release in response to Doe Run’s closing:

Doe Run made significant efforts to reduce lead emissions from the smelter, but in 2008 the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead that were 10 times tighter than the previous standard. Given the new lead air quality standard, Doe Run made the decision to close the Herculaneum smelter.
Whatever the EPA’s motivation when creating the new lead air quality standard, increasingly restrictive regulation of lead is likely to affect the production and cost of traditional ammunition. Just this month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that will ban lead ammunition for all hunting in California. The Center for Biological Diversity has tried multiple times to get similar regulations at the federal level by trying, and repeatedly failing, to get the EPA to regulate conventional ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

“You can own all the guns you want, but if you can’t get ammo, you are out of luck,” Mr. West wrote, on his blog. “Remember when President Obama promised his minions that he was working on gun control behind the scenes? Welcome to it. The result is that all domestically mined ore will have to be shipped overseas, refined and then shipped back to the U.S.”

Mr. West warned: “Not only will ammo be even harder to come by, the demand and the process of supply will cause the price to skyrocket even more. And ponder this: There is an excellent chance that Obama will rig the market to where all ammo has to be purchased from the government, instituting an ammo registration. … So America, backdoor gun control is moving forward … [and] our Second Amendment rights are undergoing an assault by clandestine infiltration.”

West concluded his editorial by bashing the president’s “progressive socialist acolytes” for destroying the Second Amendment before telling fellow GOP politicians, “Now it’s our move in 2014.”


God bless,
JohnnyD