Article by By Greg Richter
President Barack Obama's approval numbers have hit a record low, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
Only 42 percent approve of Obama's job performance, according the poll.
That's down 5 points from early October. And 51 percent disapprove of
his performance, which is tied for his all-time high disapproval.
And for the first time in the poll's history, Obama's personal approval
ratings were lower than his disapproval ratings. The poll showed that
41 percent approve of him on a personal level and 45 percent disapprove.
"Personally and politically, the public's assessment is two thumbs
down," Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart told NBC. Hart and Republican
pollster Bill McInturff conducted the survey.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Obama should not have lied to the people!
Article by By Greg Richter
Comedian and liberal political commentator Bill Maher says
President Barack Obama should have been upfront that people would lose
the health insurance they like under the Affordable Care Act.
But Maher believes that if he had, Obamacare likely would never have passed.
"I don't think Obama should have lied to people," Maher said Tuesday on CNN's Piers Morgan Live. Host
Morgan, a supporter of Obamacare and native of Great Britain where
healthcare is provided by the government, agreed with Maher that Obama's
repeated promise was "a barefaced lie."
Republican politicians and conservative pundits alike said Obama
wasn't being honest when he said that his signature healthcare plan
would allow anyone who liked his or her insurance policy to keep it.
Rules written after the bill passed made virtually all the
"grandfathered" policies illegal.
"The thing passed by this much," Maher said holding his thumb and
forefinger inches apart. Had Obama told people that many of them would
lose the insurance they like it wouldn't have had a chance, he admitted.
Maher also doubts Obama is being truthful when he says he was unaware the United States was spying on the leaders of allied countries, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The White House's insistence that Obama was out of the loop is "not
credible and not excusable," Maher said. "I thought he was the detail
guy."
Monday, October 28, 2013
The truth about the Shutdown
Comments from the internet that I found hit the nail on the head about the shutdown.
Any expense due to the Harry-Barry "shutdown"
(slowdown) is pin money compared to what it's going to cost us for the
"Affordable" Care Act. When this thing is done wreaking havoc on the
country and it's working/taxpaying citizens, we'll be lucky if we've even a
shadow of what we are today, let alone what we used to be. Interesting to note
that the "shutdown" signs were up overnight, and anyone who's ever
dealt with the Federal government knows it takes many weeks to get anything
like these signs manufactured. So, evidently it was pre-planned by those who
hope to profit from it most. And, since they have most of the media
well-trained now, Americans are still blaming "those darn
Republicans" for the "shutdown." Amazing
Of course the park service was told to make things hurt! The park people have
admitted it. So, it was OK to hurt our
2nd WW vets who had 1 chance to see the memorial and they had to take down the
fence to get in. Come if you haven't been there, it's open air - there are no
gates, nothing you have to go thru to get in, you just walk through it.
What kind of a president would make sure they couldn't get in?
What kind of a president would dishonor the men who are dying every day and may never get a chance to see it?
Any president who honors our men and women would be over there tearing down the fence himself. Of course he ordered it. It took more money to close it than it did to leave it as it was.
What kind of a president would make sure they couldn't get in?
What kind of a president would dishonor the men who are dying every day and may never get a chance to see it?
Any president who honors our men and women would be over there tearing down the fence himself. Of course he ordered it. It took more money to close it than it did to leave it as it was.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Carbon Footprint
“The
idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since
CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an
informal email exchange. - See more at:
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and
ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom
explained to AFP in an informal email exchange
Dr. Karlstrom, who also
manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming”
hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global warming is
phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international
political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a
‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in
American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s
and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony
environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the
world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the
industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and
trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”
“The IPCC is
essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human
activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental
and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence
to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom
says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies
have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined
conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of
“man-made climate change.”
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
“The IPCC
is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that
human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other
environmental and climate problems, even though there is little
objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact
a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with
the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only
spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also
to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made
climate change.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
“The IPCC
is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that
human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other
environmental and climate problems, even though there is little
objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact
a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with
the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only
spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also
to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made
climate change.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
“The IPCC
is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that
human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other
environmental and climate problems, even though there is little
objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact
a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with
the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only
spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also
to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made
climate change.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
Many
scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the
very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor
of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that
the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.
“The idea
of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is
beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
Many
scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the
very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor
of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that
the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.
“The idea
of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is
beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
Many
scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the
very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor
of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that
the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.
“The idea
of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is
beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
Many
scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the
very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor
of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that
the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.
“The idea
of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is
beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
“The
idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since
CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpuf
“The
idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since
CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.
Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global
warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation
of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused
global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess
wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the
Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the
centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to
redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from
the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN
Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and
radically reduce the human population.”
- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240#sthash.rOQjNxzT.dpufThe Case for Optimism
The Case for Optimism
Conservatives can have a good year — if they want to.
The shutdown is over, and the Democrats have won. Now, we will be told incessantly about the damage that was done to the Republican party, about the insurrectionist “fever” that the president masterfully succeeded in “breaking,” and about the free hand that the White House has to implement Obamacare, its central achievement.
All of this is to be expected, but it is not necessarily to be taken seriously. Given the romantic and unrealistic goals that it established at the outset — and the calamitous absence of anything approaching a strategy throughout — the Republican party can certainly have been said to have “lost” the shutdown. And yet this was a loss that was marked not by any serious policy concessions but by the maintenance of the status quo. The president succeeded in ensuring that his side did not lose anything it wanted, yes. But as Dan Meyer, Newt Gingrich’s former chief of staff, observes, he also “didn’t get more revenue. He didn’t get the sequester caps lifted. All those decisions were punted.”
Punted to less promising ground for the Democratic party, too.Whether or not the national media will elect to focus on the Obamacare rollout mess now that it cannot claim to be distracted by the shutdown will, in truth, be largely irrelevant going forward. Up and down the country, local newspapers are telling brutal stories of breathtaking technical incompetence and of genuine sticker shock. The national papers can continue to append to objective criticisms the usual “Republicans say . . . ” but it is pretty clear to all but the truest of believers that the administration’s promises are in tatters and that its critics are starting to look happily prescient. The media are corrupt; but they’re not corrupt enough to hide the debacle.
Indeed, even the law’s fiercest advocates have been impressed into conceding that the rollout has been a disgrace. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, Obama cheerleader par excellence, has characterized the launch as a “disaster.” Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has argued on television that the episode has been “excruciatingly embarrassing.” Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum, meanwhile, has echoed the growing fear that the issues will be with us for the long haul. “The bugs,” he wrote this week, “seem deep and profound.”
Rather amusingly, Drum went on to ask, “Why has this turned out to be so much worse than I thought it would be?” This prompted a blunt answer from my colleague Jim Geraghty: Well, “because you have way too much faith in the good intentions and competence of Obama administration officials.” Jim is correct, and herein lies a real threat not only to Obamacare but to the entire progressive sales pitch of “Let us take charge!” This is to say that the failure of the administration to deliver a simple website in three years is an indictment of technocracy itself and, more specifically, of the ugly Wilsonian contention that governments are realistically able to “open for the public a bureau of skilled, economical administration” run by the “hundreds who are wise” for the good of the “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” Back in June, HHS technologists were telling The Atlantic that “it’s incredible what can happen when you give a team of talented developers and managers [room to work] and let them go.” They were right. As we have learned in these past three weeks, it is indeed incredible what happens when the federal government does this.
Conservatives have been presented with a golden opportunity to remind Americans why bloated, arrogant, centralized government is not to be trusted in this age or the next. They must take it. Obamacare, as Ross Douthat has observed, is “the whole ballgame for liberalism right now.” If it fails, the “hoped-for of liberalism will have been foreclosed, not by Tea Party extremism, but by a liberal administration’s own unforced errors.”
Irony of ironies, the truth is that Obamacare is far more likely to be delayed by the White House than by the Tea Party — or, for that matter, by anybody in the conservative movement. In an in-depth piece that delves into the “third world experience” offered by the online exchanges, the New York Times confirmed that “the growing national outcry has deeply embarrassed the White House.” This is a president who, to put it rather mildly, does not do well with being laughed at and who has a nasty habit of attempting to remove anything that he can from the immediate judgment of the electorate. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the man who has so steadfastly rebuffed Republican attempts to delay his beloved law will be forced by events and pride to add another delay of his own. Remember: For all the talk of “nullification” and “sedition,” Obama is the only political actor in Washington who has thus far managed to effect any changes to the law whatsoever.
Should it happen, a unilateral delay might make the Republicans’ behavior during the debt-ceiling debate look a touch more reasonable in hindsight, distilling the disorganization, desperation, and inconsistency of their inchoate push into one politically beneficial memory: “They really wanted to stop this, huh?” The inevitable election-season commercials painting Republicans as extremists prepared to shut down the government would be easily rebuffed, too, allowing those accused of resorting to desperate tactics to respond, “You’re damn right we did. Do you remember the disaster? Have you seen your premiums?” Extremis malis, extrema remedia, and all that.
Journalists and political commentators are correctly observing that, in all likelihood, Americans will be treated to another budget fight early next year. This time, if they are sensible, Republicans will be presented with a solid opportunity to block the president’s fiscal agenda — and to do so using his own tactics. All told, Democrats hate sequestration, and they remain desperate to raise its spending caps. Republicans, on the other hand, are generally much less worried about the law, and the tea-party contingent is the least bothered of all. This means that maintaining the status quo is considerably more appealing to conservatives than it is to progressives.
It also means that, early next year, the House can simply pass a “clean” debt-ceiling raise and a “clean” continuing resolution and then go on vacation — perhaps after raising a middle finger to Harry Reid on the way out of D.C. Meanwhile, John Boehner can go to the nearest microphone and, deliciously, parrot the president’s own message. “We have today passed clean bills to fund the government and to ensure that the country pays its bills,” Boehner can say. “We hope that the arsonists and terrorists in the Senate and the White House will not choose to manufacture a crisis during which they allow extremists to take the country hostage. If they do demand ransoms, we will not pay them.” “Sequestration,” Boehner can say, “is the law of the land — passed by Congress, and signed by the president.” And then he can drop the microphone and go golfing, secure in the knowledge that conservatives will keep spending caps at their current levels and that, a few months away from an important election, he has publicly dared Harry Reid and Barack Obama to attach a deeply unpopular spending increase to an unpopular increase in the debt ceiling.
read more at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/361576/case-optimism-charles-c-w-cooke
Conservatives can have a good year — if they want to.
The shutdown is over, and the Democrats have won. Now, we will be told incessantly about the damage that was done to the Republican party, about the insurrectionist “fever” that the president masterfully succeeded in “breaking,” and about the free hand that the White House has to implement Obamacare, its central achievement.
All of this is to be expected, but it is not necessarily to be taken seriously. Given the romantic and unrealistic goals that it established at the outset — and the calamitous absence of anything approaching a strategy throughout — the Republican party can certainly have been said to have “lost” the shutdown. And yet this was a loss that was marked not by any serious policy concessions but by the maintenance of the status quo. The president succeeded in ensuring that his side did not lose anything it wanted, yes. But as Dan Meyer, Newt Gingrich’s former chief of staff, observes, he also “didn’t get more revenue. He didn’t get the sequester caps lifted. All those decisions were punted.”
Punted to less promising ground for the Democratic party, too.Whether or not the national media will elect to focus on the Obamacare rollout mess now that it cannot claim to be distracted by the shutdown will, in truth, be largely irrelevant going forward. Up and down the country, local newspapers are telling brutal stories of breathtaking technical incompetence and of genuine sticker shock. The national papers can continue to append to objective criticisms the usual “Republicans say . . . ” but it is pretty clear to all but the truest of believers that the administration’s promises are in tatters and that its critics are starting to look happily prescient. The media are corrupt; but they’re not corrupt enough to hide the debacle.
Indeed, even the law’s fiercest advocates have been impressed into conceding that the rollout has been a disgrace. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein, Obama cheerleader par excellence, has characterized the launch as a “disaster.” Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has argued on television that the episode has been “excruciatingly embarrassing.” Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum, meanwhile, has echoed the growing fear that the issues will be with us for the long haul. “The bugs,” he wrote this week, “seem deep and profound.”
Rather amusingly, Drum went on to ask, “Why has this turned out to be so much worse than I thought it would be?” This prompted a blunt answer from my colleague Jim Geraghty: Well, “because you have way too much faith in the good intentions and competence of Obama administration officials.” Jim is correct, and herein lies a real threat not only to Obamacare but to the entire progressive sales pitch of “Let us take charge!” This is to say that the failure of the administration to deliver a simple website in three years is an indictment of technocracy itself and, more specifically, of the ugly Wilsonian contention that governments are realistically able to “open for the public a bureau of skilled, economical administration” run by the “hundreds who are wise” for the good of the “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish.” Back in June, HHS technologists were telling The Atlantic that “it’s incredible what can happen when you give a team of talented developers and managers [room to work] and let them go.” They were right. As we have learned in these past three weeks, it is indeed incredible what happens when the federal government does this.
Conservatives have been presented with a golden opportunity to remind Americans why bloated, arrogant, centralized government is not to be trusted in this age or the next. They must take it. Obamacare, as Ross Douthat has observed, is “the whole ballgame for liberalism right now.” If it fails, the “hoped-for of liberalism will have been foreclosed, not by Tea Party extremism, but by a liberal administration’s own unforced errors.”
Irony of ironies, the truth is that Obamacare is far more likely to be delayed by the White House than by the Tea Party — or, for that matter, by anybody in the conservative movement. In an in-depth piece that delves into the “third world experience” offered by the online exchanges, the New York Times confirmed that “the growing national outcry has deeply embarrassed the White House.” This is a president who, to put it rather mildly, does not do well with being laughed at and who has a nasty habit of attempting to remove anything that he can from the immediate judgment of the electorate. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the man who has so steadfastly rebuffed Republican attempts to delay his beloved law will be forced by events and pride to add another delay of his own. Remember: For all the talk of “nullification” and “sedition,” Obama is the only political actor in Washington who has thus far managed to effect any changes to the law whatsoever.
Should it happen, a unilateral delay might make the Republicans’ behavior during the debt-ceiling debate look a touch more reasonable in hindsight, distilling the disorganization, desperation, and inconsistency of their inchoate push into one politically beneficial memory: “They really wanted to stop this, huh?” The inevitable election-season commercials painting Republicans as extremists prepared to shut down the government would be easily rebuffed, too, allowing those accused of resorting to desperate tactics to respond, “You’re damn right we did. Do you remember the disaster? Have you seen your premiums?” Extremis malis, extrema remedia, and all that.
Journalists and political commentators are correctly observing that, in all likelihood, Americans will be treated to another budget fight early next year. This time, if they are sensible, Republicans will be presented with a solid opportunity to block the president’s fiscal agenda — and to do so using his own tactics. All told, Democrats hate sequestration, and they remain desperate to raise its spending caps. Republicans, on the other hand, are generally much less worried about the law, and the tea-party contingent is the least bothered of all. This means that maintaining the status quo is considerably more appealing to conservatives than it is to progressives.
It also means that, early next year, the House can simply pass a “clean” debt-ceiling raise and a “clean” continuing resolution and then go on vacation — perhaps after raising a middle finger to Harry Reid on the way out of D.C. Meanwhile, John Boehner can go to the nearest microphone and, deliciously, parrot the president’s own message. “We have today passed clean bills to fund the government and to ensure that the country pays its bills,” Boehner can say. “We hope that the arsonists and terrorists in the Senate and the White House will not choose to manufacture a crisis during which they allow extremists to take the country hostage. If they do demand ransoms, we will not pay them.” “Sequestration,” Boehner can say, “is the law of the land — passed by Congress, and signed by the president.” And then he can drop the microphone and go golfing, secure in the knowledge that conservatives will keep spending caps at their current levels and that, a few months away from an important election, he has publicly dared Harry Reid and Barack Obama to attach a deeply unpopular spending increase to an unpopular increase in the debt ceiling.
read more at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/361576/case-optimism-charles-c-w-cooke
Nancy Pelosi lies to the American people
PELOSI LIES
Nancy Pelosi still insists that Obamacare will improve the lives of average Americans, despite over 20 reports indicating otherwise.
"Because of the law, in the coming months Americans will have expanded choices and more affordable care." Pelosi said at a recent Capitol Hill briefing. "We will be enhancing patients' rights, putting money back in the pockets of consumers, reducing costs and strengthening the economic, financial, and health security of working families."
She goes further to say that Obamacare will even lower the nation's debt.
"The Affordable Care Act is bringing the cost of health care in our country down in both the public and private sector," said Pelosi. "And that is what is largely responsible for the deficit coming down."
But what she doesn't realize is that her numbers are flawed.
"Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."
The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."
Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%.
HIGHER TAXES
On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.
Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans.
The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.
The new taxes don't bode well for middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Great Recession.
Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.
INCREASE HEALTHCARE COSTS
Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.
Experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect. In fact, it's estimated that Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.
A McKinsey report now estimates Obamacare will cost taxpayers at least an additional $400 billion more than originally proposed.
And another study done by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare won't actually expand coverage and that the number of uninsured under Obamacare won't ever fall below 30 million.
Perhaps worse than anything, is that millions of Americans will now lose their full-time jobs.
That's a big reason why close to two-thirds of the country do not approve of Obamacare, according to recent polls.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Many are still furious over how the Democratically-controlled Congress passed this bill, which many scholars deem unconstitutional.
"Bipartisanship is a two-way street," Pelosi said before Congress voted on the law. "A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes...We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."
If Congress had read the bill before passing it they should have noticed one section of the law that says you could get slapped with a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance - even if you do actually have it.
WHAT IS COVERED
Or another section that says that under Obamacare ordinary Americans will get stuck paying for substance abuse coverage even if they never touched a drink or drug in their life.
With the implementation of Obamacare quickly approaching, millions of Americans are asking what they can do to prepare for all the new costs and rules.
One expert, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, recently wrote a best-selling book showing Americans how they can survive Obamacare.
McCaughey is one of the only people in the country -- including members of Congress - who has actually read the entire 2,572 page law.
Her book, titled Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving the New Health Care Law breaks down the complicated bill into 168 pages of actionable advice.
The book, written in an easy going, easy to read style, examines the implications of Obamacare not seen in the mainstream press.
"Section 1501 of Obamacare requires nearly everyone to enroll in a one-size fits all, government-designed health insurance plan. For the first time in history, this law empowers the federal government to control how doctors treat privately insured patients," McCaughey writes. "So even if you have your own private health plan that you paid for yourself, the government will have say over your care."
She says that higher costs are only one negative of Obamacare. Doctors, nurses and other hospital employees will suffer from the government's interference in healthcare. This will trickle down to poorer patient care.
What's more, one third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers, says McCaughey.
In fact, corporations including GE, IBM, and Time Warner have already said they will stop providing insurance for hundreds of thousands of employees.
WHAT DOCTORS CAN AND CANNOT DO
McCaughey also exposes several sections of the bill that empower Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to dictate what doctors can and cannot do.
"Section 4104(a), empowers Sebelius to reduce preventive services for seniors based on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force," McCaughey notes. "This is the panel that said women ages forty to forty-nine and older than seventy-four should no longer get routine mammograms."
And according to McCaughey's research, senior citizens will get hit the hardest from Obamacare. "If you're a senior or a baby boomer, expect less care than in the past," she says. "Hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be especially hard to get from Medicare in the months ahead."
She warns seniors to get some of those types of procedures done now before Obamacare goes into full effect, as Obamacare awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least on seniors.
PRIVACY
Lastly, many will find it difficult to keep their medical records private, according to McCaughey.
"The law will compel Americans to share with millions of strangers who are not physicians confidential private and personal medical history information they do not wish to share"
Nancy Pelosi still insists that Obamacare will improve the lives of average Americans, despite over 20 reports indicating otherwise.
"Because of the law, in the coming months Americans will have expanded choices and more affordable care." Pelosi said at a recent Capitol Hill briefing. "We will be enhancing patients' rights, putting money back in the pockets of consumers, reducing costs and strengthening the economic, financial, and health security of working families."
She goes further to say that Obamacare will even lower the nation's debt.
"The Affordable Care Act is bringing the cost of health care in our country down in both the public and private sector," said Pelosi. "And that is what is largely responsible for the deficit coming down."
But what she doesn't realize is that her numbers are flawed.
"Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs."
The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases."
Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%.
HIGHER TAXES
On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people.
Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans.
The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.
The new taxes don't bode well for middle-class Americans. Incomes for the rich have soared this decade but middle class workers have seen their wages stagnate and even drop since the 2008 Great Recession.
Many fear Obamacare with its high insurance costs and new taxes, could provide the middle class a fatal blow.
INCREASE HEALTHCARE COSTS
Of course, the Obamacare plan was primarily designed to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs.
Experts are saying it will have the exact opposite effect. In fact, it's estimated that Obamacare will cost the average taxpayer nearly $6,000 in extra taxes as early as next year.
A McKinsey report now estimates Obamacare will cost taxpayers at least an additional $400 billion more than originally proposed.
And another study done by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare won't actually expand coverage and that the number of uninsured under Obamacare won't ever fall below 30 million.
Perhaps worse than anything, is that millions of Americans will now lose their full-time jobs.
That's a big reason why close to two-thirds of the country do not approve of Obamacare, according to recent polls.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Many are still furious over how the Democratically-controlled Congress passed this bill, which many scholars deem unconstitutional.
"Bipartisanship is a two-way street," Pelosi said before Congress voted on the law. "A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes...We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."
If Congress had read the bill before passing it they should have noticed one section of the law that says you could get slapped with a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance - even if you do actually have it.
WHAT IS COVERED
Or another section that says that under Obamacare ordinary Americans will get stuck paying for substance abuse coverage even if they never touched a drink or drug in their life.
With the implementation of Obamacare quickly approaching, millions of Americans are asking what they can do to prepare for all the new costs and rules.
One expert, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and constitutional scholar with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, recently wrote a best-selling book showing Americans how they can survive Obamacare.
McCaughey is one of the only people in the country -- including members of Congress - who has actually read the entire 2,572 page law.
Her book, titled Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for Surviving the New Health Care Law breaks down the complicated bill into 168 pages of actionable advice.
The book, written in an easy going, easy to read style, examines the implications of Obamacare not seen in the mainstream press.
"Section 1501 of Obamacare requires nearly everyone to enroll in a one-size fits all, government-designed health insurance plan. For the first time in history, this law empowers the federal government to control how doctors treat privately insured patients," McCaughey writes. "So even if you have your own private health plan that you paid for yourself, the government will have say over your care."
She says that higher costs are only one negative of Obamacare. Doctors, nurses and other hospital employees will suffer from the government's interference in healthcare. This will trickle down to poorer patient care.
What's more, one third of all U.S. employers could stop offering health insurance to their workers, says McCaughey.
In fact, corporations including GE, IBM, and Time Warner have already said they will stop providing insurance for hundreds of thousands of employees.
WHAT DOCTORS CAN AND CANNOT DO
McCaughey also exposes several sections of the bill that empower Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to dictate what doctors can and cannot do.
"Section 4104(a), empowers Sebelius to reduce preventive services for seniors based on the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force," McCaughey notes. "This is the panel that said women ages forty to forty-nine and older than seventy-four should no longer get routine mammograms."
And according to McCaughey's research, senior citizens will get hit the hardest from Obamacare. "If you're a senior or a baby boomer, expect less care than in the past," she says. "Hip and knee replacements and cataract surgery will be especially hard to get from Medicare in the months ahead."
She warns seniors to get some of those types of procedures done now before Obamacare goes into full effect, as Obamacare awards bonus points to hospitals that spend the least on seniors.
PRIVACY
Lastly, many will find it difficult to keep their medical records private, according to McCaughey.
"The law will compel Americans to share with millions of strangers who are not physicians confidential private and personal medical history information they do not wish to share"
Ted Cruz speaks out
Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t very popular right now on Capitol Hill — and he says he doesn’t care.
“There’s an old saying that, ‘Politics,
it ain’t beanbag.’ And, you know, I’m not serving in office because I
desperately needed 99 new friends in the U.S. Senate,” the Texas
Republican told ABC News in an interview set to air Sunday.
“I will say that the reason this deal, the lousy deal was reached last night, is because, unfortunately, Senate Republicans made the choice not to support House Republicans,” Cruz told ABC. “I wish Senate Republicans had united, I tried to do everything I could to urge Senate Republicans to come together and stand with House Republicans.”
“I think it was unfortunate that you
saw multiple members of the Senate Republicans going on television
attacking House conservatives, attacking the effort to defund Obamacare,
saying, ‘It cannot win, It’s a fools error and we will lose, this must
fail,’” Cruz said.
“That is a recipe for losing the fight, and it’s a shame,” he said.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Pelosi is still in the fog!
Nancy Pelosi's famous words - "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
As I see it, it is even more foggy with all the mess that the Affordable Care Act website has rolled out!
Obama said PERIOD!
Obama said in June 2009 "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period! If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period!"
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Article on the Affordable Care Act
I read this article on Town hall. Make sure you click on the links for more outragous news about the Affordable Care Act and what the consequences have been since its implementation.
As promised, here's a second tranche of Obamacare news. Yesterday, we focused on the depth and breadth of Obamacare's technical failures -- an important storyline, to be sure. But fixating exclusively on the trainwreck aspect is a mistake. This law is harmful and damaging for reasons far beyond the shocking incompetence of its launch:
(1) While we're on the topic of the online exchange meltdown, you'll likely be interested in the Washington Examiner's report that the Obama administration only entertained one contract to build the now-infamous federal exchange website. Several years and nearly $100,000,000.00 later, Obama's no-bid contract has produced a complete mess. Lest you'd forgotten, liberals railed against no-bid contracts during the Bush years, muttering endlessly about Dick Cheney and Halliburton, for instance. Barack Obama pledged to reform the government procurement process; like many Obama promises, it has gone unfulfilled. The result is the monument to government ineptitude known as healthcare.gov.
(2) CNN estimates that a paltry 117,000 Americans have enrolled in Obamacare so far -- a statistic that may or may not suffer from the duplication issue that's plagued the suppressed-then-leaked federal numbers. In individual states, things continue to go badly. In most states, enrollment data is incomplete or unavailable.
(3) Hospitals are shedding staff, and insurers are still pulling out of markets, both phenomena will exacerbate consumers' "access shock" in places like California and New Hampshire.
(4) In Massachusetts -- the state-level laboratory for Obamacare -- an acute doctor shortage is becoming more severe, raising access concerns. Obamacare expands this issue on a national scale.
(5) The San Francisco Chronicle has discovered a brilliant method of lowering one's healthcare costs under the new law: Earn less money. To come out ahead under this scheme, individuals or families would have to reduce their income to the point that it dips below the maximum threshold for government assistance. What a message that sends. Work less, earn less, get more fromUncle Sam hard-working taxpayers.
(6) Finally, and importantly, we're witnessing more premium shock for average people. We wrote about Obamacare's terrible consequences for a disabled mother of a young child on Friday; now the Chicago Tribune introduces America to some additional victims of the president's "Affordable" Care Act:
Premium shock is only one part of the puzzle. Out-of-pocket sticker shock is just as pernicious, and just as unaffordable for many working families.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/10/15/obamacare-sticker-shock-hits-obamas-home-town-n1723885
As promised, here's a second tranche of Obamacare news. Yesterday, we focused on the depth and breadth of Obamacare's technical failures -- an important storyline, to be sure. But fixating exclusively on the trainwreck aspect is a mistake. This law is harmful and damaging for reasons far beyond the shocking incompetence of its launch:
(1) While we're on the topic of the online exchange meltdown, you'll likely be interested in the Washington Examiner's report that the Obama administration only entertained one contract to build the now-infamous federal exchange website. Several years and nearly $100,000,000.00 later, Obama's no-bid contract has produced a complete mess. Lest you'd forgotten, liberals railed against no-bid contracts during the Bush years, muttering endlessly about Dick Cheney and Halliburton, for instance. Barack Obama pledged to reform the government procurement process; like many Obama promises, it has gone unfulfilled. The result is the monument to government ineptitude known as healthcare.gov.
(2) CNN estimates that a paltry 117,000 Americans have enrolled in Obamacare so far -- a statistic that may or may not suffer from the duplication issue that's plagued the suppressed-then-leaked federal numbers. In individual states, things continue to go badly. In most states, enrollment data is incomplete or unavailable.
(3) Hospitals are shedding staff, and insurers are still pulling out of markets, both phenomena will exacerbate consumers' "access shock" in places like California and New Hampshire.
(4) In Massachusetts -- the state-level laboratory for Obamacare -- an acute doctor shortage is becoming more severe, raising access concerns. Obamacare expands this issue on a national scale.
(5) The San Francisco Chronicle has discovered a brilliant method of lowering one's healthcare costs under the new law: Earn less money. To come out ahead under this scheme, individuals or families would have to reduce their income to the point that it dips below the maximum threshold for government assistance. What a message that sends. Work less, earn less, get more from
(6) Finally, and importantly, we're witnessing more premium shock for average people. We wrote about Obamacare's terrible consequences for a disabled mother of a young child on Friday; now the Chicago Tribune introduces America to some additional victims of the president's "Affordable" Care Act:
Adam Weldzius, a nurse practitioner, considers himself better informed than most when it comes to the inner workings of health insurance. But even he wasn’t prepared for the pocketbook hit he’ll face next year under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. If the 33-year-old single father wants the same level of coverage next year as what he has now with the same insurer and the same network of doctors and hospitals, his monthly premium of $233 will more than double. If he wants to keep his monthly payments in check, the Carpentersville resident is looking at an annual deductible for himself and his 7-year-old daughter of $12,700, a more than threefold increase from $3,500 today. “I believe everybody should be able to have health insurance, but at the same time, I’m being penalized. And for what?” said Weldzius...a Tribune analysis shows that 21 of the 22 lowest-priced plansoffered on the Illinois health insurance exchange for Cook Countyhave annual deductibles of more than $4,000 for an individual and $8,000 for family coverage. Those deductibles, which represent the out-of-pocket money consumers must spend on health care before most insurance benefits kick in, are higher than what many consumers expected or may be able to stomach, benefit experts said.
Premium shock is only one part of the puzzle. Out-of-pocket sticker shock is just as pernicious, and just as unaffordable for many working families.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/10/15/obamacare-sticker-shock-hits-obamas-home-town-n1723885
Monday, October 14, 2013
Affordable Care Act encourges divorce
From Newsmax:
Save Money on Obamacare — Get Divorced
It's being called Obamacare's "wedding tax." Provisions of the healthcare reform bill discourage marriage — and encourage divorce.
According to a report by PJ Media, married couples can save thousands of dollars on healthcare premiums if they get a divorce and continue to live together.
That's because Obamacare is designed to provide healthcare benefits that are substantially more generous for lower-income people, and the bill counts a married couple's income jointly.
Using a calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation, PJ Media's Tom Blumer gave the example of a 60-year-old married couple with no children in the household, with identical annual incomes totaling $62,041. Obamacare premiums rise sharply when combined earnings hit $62,041.
If they remain wed, their net premium next year would be $16,382. But unmarried individuals can earn up to $45,960 before losing Obamacare's subsidies, so if the couple divorces and each reports an income of $31,020.50, their combined net premium would be $5,354. That's a savings of $11,028 next year.
Blumer also offers the example of a 40-year-old couple with two children and incomes of $70,000 and $23,000.
Their combined income is $93,000, and subsidies disappear at $92,401 for married pairs with two children. Their combined premium would be $11,547 next year.
But if they divorce and give custody of the children to the lower-earning spouse, one spouse's premium would be $3,857 and the other's would be $460, for a total of $4,317. That's a savings of $7,230 next year.
Blumer observes: "Clearly, many couples who are considering marriage, especially after several years of seeing formerly married couples regress to cohabiting, will look at Obamacare's 'wedding tax' and say, 'never mind.'
"The effect on society will be incalculable, and certainly not for the good."
However, the law in many states says a couple cannot cohabit indefinitely and still claim not to be married.
The IRS could find those couples who are claiming they are not wed for healthcare subsidy purposes, leading to this scenario, according to Blumer: "Those caught and punished by the IRS carrying out its new role as the de facto 'marriage police' could get hit with multi-year bills for undeserved 'tax credits' running into tens of thousands of dollars."
Save Money on Obamacare — Get Divorced
It's being called Obamacare's "wedding tax." Provisions of the healthcare reform bill discourage marriage — and encourage divorce.
According to a report by PJ Media, married couples can save thousands of dollars on healthcare premiums if they get a divorce and continue to live together.
That's because Obamacare is designed to provide healthcare benefits that are substantially more generous for lower-income people, and the bill counts a married couple's income jointly.
Using a calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation, PJ Media's Tom Blumer gave the example of a 60-year-old married couple with no children in the household, with identical annual incomes totaling $62,041. Obamacare premiums rise sharply when combined earnings hit $62,041.
If they remain wed, their net premium next year would be $16,382. But unmarried individuals can earn up to $45,960 before losing Obamacare's subsidies, so if the couple divorces and each reports an income of $31,020.50, their combined net premium would be $5,354. That's a savings of $11,028 next year.
Blumer also offers the example of a 40-year-old couple with two children and incomes of $70,000 and $23,000.
Their combined income is $93,000, and subsidies disappear at $92,401 for married pairs with two children. Their combined premium would be $11,547 next year.
But if they divorce and give custody of the children to the lower-earning spouse, one spouse's premium would be $3,857 and the other's would be $460, for a total of $4,317. That's a savings of $7,230 next year.
Blumer observes: "Clearly, many couples who are considering marriage, especially after several years of seeing formerly married couples regress to cohabiting, will look at Obamacare's 'wedding tax' and say, 'never mind.'
"The effect on society will be incalculable, and certainly not for the good."
However, the law in many states says a couple cannot cohabit indefinitely and still claim not to be married.
The IRS could find those couples who are claiming they are not wed for healthcare subsidy purposes, leading to this scenario, according to Blumer: "Those caught and punished by the IRS carrying out its new role as the de facto 'marriage police' could get hit with multi-year bills for undeserved 'tax credits' running into tens of thousands of dollars."
National Park Websites are shut down. What a Crock!
When I tried to open up the webiste to learn about Antietam National Battlefield - I got this (Notice all the Utah Parks and that is only because our County Commisioners declared our area a disaster.
Because of the federal government shutdown, national parks are closed and the National Park Service website is not being maintained.
As a result of donations from states to the National Park Service, the following national parks are temporarily re-opened.
Thank you for your support during this time.
For more information, go to www.doi.gov/shutdown.
So I went to gov/shutdown and here is some of the headlines - It is interesting that they have time to take of this website but can't take care of all the National parks websites which can run on their own. What a waste. Obama just wants to make it as painful as possible!!
Because of the federal government shutdown, national parks are closed and the National Park Service website is not being maintained.
As a result of donations from states to the National Park Service, the following national parks are temporarily re-opened.
- Arches National Park (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Bryce Canyon National Park (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Canyonlands National Park (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Capitol Reef National Park (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Cedar Breaks National Monument (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Natural Bridges National Monument (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Zion National Park (Utah, open October 11-20)
- Rocky Mountain National Park (Colorado, open October 11-20)
- Statue of Liberty National Monument (New York, open October 12-17)
- Mount Rushmore National Memorial (South Dakota, open October 14-23)
- Grand Canyon National Park (Arizona, open October 12-18)
Thank you for your support during this time.
For more information, go to www.doi.gov/shutdown.
So I went to gov/shutdown and here is some of the headlines - It is interesting that they have time to take of this website but can't take care of all the National parks websites which can run on their own. What a waste. Obama just wants to make it as painful as possible!!
Latest Updates
- Statement on Continuing Efforts to Finalize Agreement with District of Columbia on Ford Theatre (10/16/2013)
- Wildlife Trafficking Advisory Council Meeting Postponed (10/16/2013)
- Refuge Week Events Cancelled (10/16/2013)
- National Park Service Enters Agreement with State of Tennessee to Re-open Great Smoky Mountains National Park (10/15/2013)
- Continued Government Shutdown message from Secretary Jewell (10/15/2013)
- National Park Service Enters Agreement with State of South Dakota to Re-open Mount Rushmore (10/11/2013)
- National Park Service Enters Agreement with State of Arizona to Re-open Grand Canyon (10/11/2013)
- National Park Service Enters Agreement with State of New York to Re-open Statue of Liberty (10/11/2013)
- National Park Service Enters Agreement with State of Colorado to Re-open Rocky Mountain National Park (10/11/2013)
- National Park Service Enters Agreement with State of Utah to Re-open Eight National Parks (10/11/2013)
- Message During Shutdown from NPS Director Jarvis (10/11/2013)
- Statement by Interior Spokesman on National Park Service (10/10/2013)
- Message to all employees from Secretary Jewell (10/9/2013)
- BLM postpones October 16 lease sale (10/9/2013)
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Obamacare (Afordable Care Act) "raped" her future
Article taken from The Blaze:
A 26-year-old university graduate
penned an open letter this week expressing her deep displeasure
with President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, saying it has
“raped” her future — and now the letter is going viral.
Ashley Dionne, a recent college graduate, posted the letter detailing her experience with Obamacare on conservative radio host
Dennis Prager’s Facebook page Monday. Read it below
Dionne told college news website Campus Reform she wrote the letter to warn the public of the problems with the Affordable Care Act.
“I wanted to get my message about
Obamacare out, because I’m being directly and negatively affected by it,
but I know it’s not just me,” Dionne said. “Obamacare will make my life
more difficult.”
She added, “It will hurt more people than it will help.”
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Harry Reid wants this shutdown!
Texas Senator Ted Cruz took to the Senate floor
to offer four unanimous consent requests to follow the lead of the
House of Representatives and provide funding for veterans’ benefits, the
NIH, the National Guard, and national parks.
Senate Democrats blocked all four requests. The Senator noted, “We are in a shutdown because President Obama and the Majority Leader of this body want a shutdown, because they believe it is in the partisan interests of their party to have a shutdown. Four times, the House of Representatives has compromised. Four times, the House of Representatives has endeavored to meet a middle ground, and four times the Majority Leader and every Democrat in this body has said no, we will not talk, we will not compromise, we will not have a middle ground."
Senate Democrats blocked all four requests. The Senator noted, “We are in a shutdown because President Obama and the Majority Leader of this body want a shutdown, because they believe it is in the partisan interests of their party to have a shutdown. Four times, the House of Representatives has compromised. Four times, the House of Representatives has endeavored to meet a middle ground, and four times the Majority Leader and every Democrat in this body has said no, we will not talk, we will not compromise, we will not have a middle ground."
Let My People Go!
I feel like this President (Obama) is like the pharaoh in the bible when Moses came to the pharaoh to ask for the people to be free to leave the land. They had been in bondage for many years being at the mercy of the Pharaoh. Moses came to him several times saying. Let My People Go. But the Pharoah was too stubborn to Free the people. Behnor is telling Obama, Let my people go by saying, let the people have the individual mandate delayed, lets not spend so much so that people have to pay more in taxes, make the government more fiscally responsible, and let the people go to the memorials that are open to the public and let the military families be paid their money. We are in bondage to the governement. Those that are dependant on the government suffer at the whims of the democrat party. They may get assistant but that assistant can also be taken away as we have seen during this shutdown. The democrats are making this shutdown as painful as possible for the people of this country. But the thing is, it is only a partial shutdown and the president can choose what is funded or not. And he chooses to not fund those items that will bring the most pain. Obama is stubborn like the Pharaoh. The pharaoh and the people of Egypt went through many plagues and the last one he lost his son in the end, How far is Obama willing to go causing pain to the people of this country before he will change his ways "Let My People Go"
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Private Inn shut down because of the Govenment Shut down.
The Pisgah Inn announced Wednesday that its efforts have been successful, and it will re-open at 5:00 p.m. if they “are lucky.”
“Please stay tuned and get ready to
rhomba,” a message on the Inn’s website reads. “Please know that
everything we did and are doing is based on our vision….’To ensure that
every guest, employee and visitor has a positive experience and memory
from their association/visit with Pisgah Inn.’”
“That was our rationale. No other
agenda or hidden purpose played any role in our actions,” the message
concludes. “Oh, we appreciate all of your support.”
–
The Pigsah Inn in North Carolina was ordered to shut its doors last week
because of the partial government shutdown — though it receives no
federal money, it sits on federal land — but the inn’s owner Bruce
O’Connell fought the order and tried to remain open.
When he did, armed Park Rangers showed up and blocked each of the inn’s entrances. They haven’t left since.
“They have been there 24-hours a day since 12:30 last Friday,” O’Connell told Glenn Beck on Tuesday.
When asked why he fought the order,
O’Connell responded easily: “Because I’m almost 60-years-old and I have
nothing to lose anymore, and I’m fed up with it.”
O’Connell said multiple times that he
is not standing up for his own sake, but for the sake of his ninety
employees who are suffering and, unlike federal workers, have no chance
of getting back pay courtesy of the taxpayer.
The small business owner said he has
hired local and Washington lawyers, and while he fights to re-open his
business, they’re still feeding the employees and “trying to make the
best of a bad scene.”
When asked what the Park Rangers
barricading the entrances to his business have to say, O’Connell
responded: “The Rangers are my friends. I know them all. And they’re
basically telling me they’re following orders, they have no choice but
to follow orders, and I understand that. I really don’t expect them to
risk their jobs, their retirement, their paychecks.”
He said his only choice is to “go to
my governor again…go to my congressman again, and I keep fighting. I
will not stop fighting.”
“I’ve been there 35 years, [and] let
me tell you what’s strange here,” O’Connell added. “The Blue Ridge
Parkway, which is the park, is open. They did not close the
park…there are tourists traveling the whole 470-mile length of the Blue
Ridge Parkway. I am a private concessioner, paying money in to the government, and yet I am closed. I’m having trouble understand that part of it.”
Beck asked if there’s any reason why
the government would be targeting him, and the man responded that he is
not particularly outspoken on politics, but he does believe in small
government.
“Well, you’re an enemy of the state then,” Beck said sardonically.
“I’m sure by now I am,” O’Connell responded with a shake of the head.
See more at - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/08/heres-how-the-owner-of-a-private-inn-barricaded-by-park-rangers-amid-government-shutdown-is-responding/
Saturday, October 5, 2013
This is Not real but it would be great.
LDS Church To Run Government During Shutdown
WASHINGTON - As an answer to the government
shutdown crisis, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has
announced that Church President Thomas S. Monson met with President
Obama today with one single proposal: “The LDS Church will run the
government during the shutdown.”
President Monson outlines major changes for his first day as interim president.
The change would have huge approval ratings on both sides of the isles. Congressman Larsen McFray (R)-MO said, “We love the flat tax idea. I’ve been pushing to let the theocratic LDS government take over forever*, and I hate Mormons.”
“I’m all for the LDS government,” said former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “Especially if that 10% taxes thing is true.”
Change #2 – Assitance Programs to be Run by Home/Visiting Teaching Initiatives and Fast Offerings
The interim government announced that Medicaid and Medicare
would be replaced by home teachers or visiting teachers. In addition,
Food Stamps, Unemployment and other government assistance programs would
be funded through fast offerings.
“So if this is true, the people I would home teach would actually want me to be there?” questioned Utah resident Chip Maclemore.Change #3 – Foreign Relations Policy: “Every Member a Missionary”
Nearly every single U.S. foreign entanglement will be solved under the “Every Member a Missionary” proposal which plans on sending the missionaries into current hot-spots all over the world.
“We were excited, to say the least, when we heard the Syria, Damascus Mission was opened,” said 18-year-old LDS missionary Terry Wilson. “I’ve been in Syria for just a few hours now but it has been great. With the way things are going, I won’t be surprised to see Bashar al-Assad baptized by Saturday.”
Assad before meeting with the missionaries
After
meeting with the missionaries, Assad was noticeably more happy. He also
apologized and repented for “that whole gas thing”.
See original at the bunyion.com
http://www.thebunyion.com/2013/10/01/lds-church-runs-government-during-shutdown/
Friday, October 4, 2013
Republicans are winning!
Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) told Glenn
Beck during a radio interview Thursday that conservatives are “winning”
the battle in Washington over Obamacare and the “government shutdown.”
“We’re winning the debate,” the senator
remarked. “That’s why they are scared and they are attacking us. The
more shrill it gets, the more scared they are.”
Cruz — one of the lawmakers who led the effort to defund Obamacare, and brought the issue to the forefront during a 21-hour speech on the Senate floor last week — referenced a Shakespeare quote that the lady “doth protest too much.”
“Why are they screaming so loudly? Why
are they so personal? Why are they so filled with hate and fear? It’s
because the American people are mobilized, are passionate and
energized,” he said. “And even worse, [they] understand that Obamacare
is hurting millions of Americans, and that has the left terrified out of
their minds.”
“They want the shutdown, and they want it painful,” he said. “Take parks and memorials.
The House passed a bill to fund all of our parks and memorials, to open
every one of them up…Those bills don’t mention Obamacare. Doesn’t say
anything about Obamacare.”
“President Obama threatened to veto it,
and Harry Reid in all likelihood is going to step forward and say no.
‘No, do not fund the Statue of Liberty. Do not open our memorials,’”
Cruz continued.
Pretty soon, Cruz said, “even as
shameless as the mainstream media is — it becomes very hard to hide who
it is that’s shutting these things down.”
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
"THE SCHULTZ PLAN."
This was a comment by Steven Chavez after the article called
"Administration will not release number of Obamacare enrollees on
opening day". I had to laugh.
"I WON'T SIGN UP FOR IT PERIOD! I'm going to follow the Plan that Obama has since he became President: "THE SCHULTZ PLAN." You all remember Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes? "I hear nothing. I see nothing. I know nothing!" STUPID works for him but just in case it doesn't work for me I'll just say "No Hablo Ingles" and I'll get free healthcare."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/01/administration-will-not-release-number-of-obamacare-enrollees-on-opening-day/#ixzz2gaRfXR64
"I WON'T SIGN UP FOR IT PERIOD! I'm going to follow the Plan that Obama has since he became President: "THE SCHULTZ PLAN." You all remember Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes? "I hear nothing. I see nothing. I know nothing!" STUPID works for him but just in case it doesn't work for me I'll just say "No Hablo Ingles" and I'll get free healthcare."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/01/administration-will-not-release-number-of-obamacare-enrollees-on-opening-day/#ixzz2gaRfXR64
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)