by Kyle Becker
Got a few hundred more dollars to spare? The Obama administration thinks so. That’s why it’s no big whoop that insurance companies could be paying out 32% more for medical claims due to Obamacare.
The Associated Press are right on the ball telling us three years too late what most sentient Americans knew all along: Obamacare will lead to cost/price increases. (Don’t know the difference? Contact a basic economics instructor.) According to the Associated Press:…
by Tim Brown
While the Supreme Court heard this week about the individual mandate issue concerning the new Healthcare law, or as it has been termed Obamacare, which is really socialized medicine, there didn’t seem to be much coverage over other things that are contained in the “Health law”. One of those issues is a standing private army.
Obamacare is a trojan horse. It is not about healthcare at all, but about control. Control in more way than one and this is why they wanted a vote on it without knowing what was in it.
On July 2, 2008 Barack Obama, in a speech in Colorado Springs, said he wanted a “national security force”, obviously not one that had sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Then Senator Obama called for a police state…
by Fred Lucas
Announcing his budget plans for fiscal year 2013 in an address at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Va., President Barack Obama characterized the current income tax rates–signed into law by President Bush a decade ago–as a form of government spending.
Essentially, the president said that the federal government “spends” when it does not raise taxes.
“Right now, we’re scheduled to spend more than $1 trillion more on what was intended to be a temporary tax cut for the wealthiest two percent of Americans,” Obama said. “We’ve already spent about that much. Now we’re expected to spend another $1 trillion. Keep in mind, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle class households. You’ve heard me say it: Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.”…
by Ann-Marie Murrell
Whenever Barack Obama talks about everyone getting their ‘fair share’ I cringe and am instantly transported back to my Elementary school playground.
In grade school terms, “fair share” usually meant that despite the fact that I may have been one of the better softball pitchers on the team, the lazy kid who didn’t even like sports was going to get a turn at pitching. And at some point, our P.E. teacher would inevitably bench the entire A Team to allow the B and C Teams to play out of ‘fairness’. (Meaning—we were going to lose, which was usually the case…)
When I protested, I was called ‘selfish’ and/or a ‘poor sport’. But to me, if the goal of a game was to win, why did we have to load up our team with losers in the name of fairness?
(Sorry any non-athletic types out there; after re-reading that I suddenly realized why I got called a lot of names in grade school…)
Still, if they really wanted to be fair– or to make sure the non-athletic kids got exercise–why not let them do jumping jacks or something non-competitive so they wouldn’t feel the stress of having to do something that probably gave them nightmares in the first place?
by Bill Wilson
Barack Obama has once again reminded the American people that he has no reservation at all about dictating to his subjects what they must do and when they must do it.
Take his most recent power grab. Whether one agrees with the use of contraception or not, forcing religious institutions to pay for a practice that violates their own doctrines is a gross misuse of government power and a violation of the First Amendment.
This policy was not even a part of the health care law that Congress voted on, it was a regulation issued from on high by the Department of Health and Human Services and the White House. It initially applies to religious-affiliated institutions like hospitals, colleges and charities, but if it stands, there will be nothing in the way to also force it onto churches and houses of worship in the future…
by Ed Lasky
Barack Obama is manipulating poverty statistics to cover income redistribution on a massive scale. I covered this subterfuge in a previous American Thinker column, Obama’s Poverty Politics. The Census Bureau has redefined “poverty” in a way that vastly increases the ranks of those characterized as living in “poverty” or “near poverty.” Robert Rector , in Team O’s Poor Trick, wrote about the redefinition and its consequences (one that was barely noticed by the public):
“Thus, it was foreordained that, using this new standard, the Census folks “discovered” that almost half the population is living in “near-poverty” conditions. That is, if you define “near poverty” as an income roughly equal to the median, that means that by definition nearly half the population will always be “poor” or “near poor” – regardless of any changes in actual living standards.
Obama’s new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty or “near poverty,” because the poverty- and near-poverty income thresholds would also double.
In other words, the president has introduced a statistical trick that gives new meaning to the saying that “the poor will always be with you.”
The shift seems designed to promote Obama’s obsession to “spread the wealth.” By suggesting that many more Americans are poor or near-poor, the Census generates political pressure to raise taxes and expand the welfare state.”
The poverty level is key to all sorts of federal and state benefits. Therefore, the more people that are considered poor under the new Obama definition, the more they will be able to draw upon tax dollars for benefits…
by David Goetsch
As Americans survey the mess President Obama and his fellow liberals in Congress have made of the economy, many of them chalk it up to incompetence and attribute his incompetence to inexperience. However, viewing the president as that poor inexperienced man in the White House who is trying hard but just doesn’t know what he is doing is mistake. President Obama appears incompetent only if the observer fails to realize what the president is trying to accomplish: advancing the left’s pro-government, pro-taxation, anti-free market agenda. When one understands the president’s agenda, the poor inexperienced man in the White House can be seen for what he really is: a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
When it comes to advancing the left’s agenda, Barack Obama is anything but incompetent. He knows exactly what he is doing, and like all demagogues, will not be deterred by facts, evidence, or advice that run counter to his preconceived notions. Barack Obama and his fellow travelers on the left will not be content until the United States of America is transformed into the United Socialist States of America, a European-like nation in which government controls every aspect of daily life. For those who defend the President by claiming that he is a statist not a socialist, I respond that statism is to socialism what the acorn is to the oak.
In his book, Welcome to Obamaland: I have Seen your Future and it Doesn’t Work, British journalist James Delingpole sends an ominous message to all Americans. “This would be my first warning to you: if you think your president…
by Joel McDurmon
“I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.”
So stated Barack Obama of himself recently. Reports Politico.com,
“Newt Gingrich isn’t the only one on the campaign trail who sees himself as a towering historical figure. President Barack Obama has just joined the club.
Obama’s comments in a recent ”60 Minutes” interview that his legislative and foreign policy accomplishments top all but three former presidents has sparked fierce blowback among right-leaning blogs.
The president’s claim didn’t air in the show’s Dec. 11 television broadcast but was included in the full interview video that CBS posted on its website that day…”
Comedian Jackie Mason blasted President Obama’s recent Hanukkah event as a condescending outreach effort to Jewish voters, at one point even suggesting the president couldn’t tell a Muslim from a Jew.
“I don’t even think he knew that he was talking about something that’s Jewish,” Mason said on Aaron Klein’s WABC radio show, Politico first reported. “It could have been Muslim, it could have been altogether a religion he never even heard of. He doesn’t know, he doesn’t care. He’s strictly in there to take a picture, and the picture could have been about anything,” Mason told Aaron Klein of WABC in New York City.
Mason launched his slam in part because the White House held the celebration on Dec. 8, though the Jewish holiday begins its eight-night run on Dec. 20.
“The way I see it, we’re just extending the holiday spirit,” the president said at the event, “We’re stretching it out. But we do have to be careful that your kids don’t start thinking Hanukkah lasts 20 nights instead of eight. That will cause some problems.”
Mason continued his assault on the president, saying that the event was just a stunt to boost his poll numbers with the Jewish community.
“A bunch of advisors, most of whom are Jewish anyway — because he has more Jews in his cabinet than Netanyahu,” Mason said, according to Politico. “He’s jammed up with Jews all around him — and they told him, if you wanna get them back, Hanukkah is a good idea.
“You don’t have to go any place. We’ll put down the tchotchke and you’ll see a candle, you’ll light it from this side, and that’s enough information for him to accumulate without a teleprompter. So he did it in 10 minutes.”