Will a young, healthy, childless individual or couple buy health insurance costing 7.5 percent of their income as required by Obama’s health legislation? Not until they get sick. Then, they can always buy the insurance — and the Obama bill requires the insurance companies to give it to them. And, if the premiums come to more than 7.5 percent of their income because they are now sick, no problem. Obama will subsidize it.
Instead, young, healthy, childless people will likely opt to pay the $1,000 fine (a.k.a., slap on the wrist) mandated in the bill. After all, even if they make as little as $50,000 a year, the fine is a lot cheaper than 7.5 percent of their income (or $3,500 a year)!
So … these young households will not contribute to the coffers of any health insurance company until they are sick and need the coverage. By then, their costs will come to vastly more than their premiums.
All over the net today are articles about Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano referring to illegal aliens as “newly arrived asylum seekers.” As disturbing as this is, it’s right in line with everything the Obama administration has done to this point. From referring to the War on Terror as an “Overseas Contingency Operation” and the renaming of a government health insurance option as a “cooperative”, the administration has consistently manipulated the English language to achieve the President’s goals when the American people disagree with him.
But perhaps even more disturbing than re-labeling those who break our laws to enter the country illegally with this benign moniker is the main point of the Reuters article that quoted Napolitano’s new tag for those soon-to-be-formerly known as illegal aliens.
The Secretary was announcing a new plan to “house” illegal aliens instead of imprisoning them! “House” them!
From the article:
“This is a system that encompasses many different types of detainees, not all of whom need to be held in prison-like circumstances,” Napolitano told a conference call.
Referring to noncriminals such as newly arrived asylum seekers, Napolitano said, “We will begin efforts to house these populations near immigration service providers and pursue different options like converted hotels or residential facilities for their detention.”
Now won’t that be nice! (And it will do so much to discourage the illegal entry into our country! NOT)
Just think, the poor from other countries will be able to abandon their shacks, huts, and hovels in their native lands, sneak across our borders, get themselves caught, and then enjoy the comforts of an American motel room, or perhaps a nice little 3-bedroom home. When word of this reaches the deserts, jungles, cities, and wilds of third world nations across the globe, illegal immigration into this country will explode!
And who will foot the bill for the spiffy quarters of all these “newly arrived asylum seekers”? The same people called on to fund every other Obama policy…the American taxpayer!
As if that’s not bad enough, let’s look at some possible motivations for this imbecilic move on the part of our Nobel laureate President.
The One who considers government spending the cure for all our economic ills may see this as a means to end the housing crisis. The increased demand for residential space will certainly drive prices up.
But of course the President won’t consider (or won’t inform the public of) the tax increases necessary to pay for the program.
The Chosen One may also see an opportunity to grow his party’s base using this devious tactic. Especially with the easing of identification requirements for voter registration of late, we could see illegals registering to vote in record numbers. And of course they’ll be so grateful to the party of Obama-Napolitano, there’s little doubt where their political allegiance will lie.
And our Dear Leader could also see an opportunity to tip the scales in conservative-leaning regions by concentrating large numbers of “newly arrived asylum seekers” in those areas. The opportunity to strengthen the Democrats’ grip on what have been toss-up Congressional districts might be enough motivation to insert “illegal aliens” into the heart of American residential communities.
Nothing this President does surprises me anymore, but this is extremely troublesome. If you enter this country illegally, you’ve broken a law. That should not warrant free housing at the expense of the American taxpayer unless that housing is a jail!
This new policy will encourage illegal immigration instead of discourage it and those of us who pay taxes will be forced to pay even more!
Call, write, and email your congressmen and senators today and tell them to put a stop to this insanity!
If President Obama wishes to be seen as a serious world leader, he should decline the Nobel Peace Prize. Doing so would be, in fact, the most honorable thing for him to do.
A very simple expression of gratitude for being considered would be appropriate. And a courageous footnote of honesty, by simply stating that because he had been in office for only twelve days at the time of the nomination, he had done nothing to deserve it, and that he would not feel at ease accepting the prize, would be refreshing.
It would be a bold, courageous, and indeed masterful move. It would underscore the humility he claims to seek for America to have on the world stage, and it would tell his critics that he is not as entirely one dimensional as their mountains of evidence have begun to suggest. It would be one significant way to take a step towards a serious approach to leadership that, to speak quite frankly, America can ill afford to wait for a moment longer.
He has already expressed his honest observation that he is not worthy of the prize. Partisan, even rancorous, Democrats have scoffed at the idea that he should be compared to Dr. King and FDR. Even NPR’s own Juan Williams exclaimed it’s utter foolishness. These observations, all from the political left, are true.
In addition to making a statement about his nation’s humility, and an even more significant one about his own, it would do something else favorable for the President. Declining the prize would wipe clean the slate of public perception that he is a man who is more concerned about his image than of the substance of his office.
With peace in Afghanistan nowhere in sight, with American troops pulling out of Iraq as bombs continue to explode, with two of the world’s most roguish nations flexing their nuclear muscles, our President (whose policies encourage all of these threats and violence) receives this prize?
The Committee says Obama is this year’s winner because “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
Here are some remarks I believe the Committee should have included when they announced this award:
For apologizing for everything America has done…
For ignoring those who died in pursuit of freedom in Iran…
For ignoring his commanders in the field who want more American troops to stem the violence in Afghanistan…
For embracing Socialist dictators like Chavez and Castro…
For refusing to pursue “victory” in the Afghan War…
For proclaiming”America is not a Christian nation”…
For encouraging Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad’s pursuit of nuclear weapons
For abandoning the Eastern European countries that formerly suffered as part of the Soviet Bloc…
by Dr. Bill Smith: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a “hawk” and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war – the Vietnam War – mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]
Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America’s economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war – or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.
The Times Online is reporting a story about “American troops in Afghanistan losing heart.” It is like “deja view” – a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.
“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.
The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].
They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.
Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet – but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .
“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” “We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .
The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .
Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .
These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today’s military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like “you carry on for the guys to your left or right” are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.
As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a “chief” responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have “fiddle around” tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.
American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.
Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America’s chief treasure – American blood. For “Pete’s sake” – Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!
Before we showed you a teacher using her class to indoctrinate the next generation as worshipers of Obama. But now it’s getting worse.
Watch the video below to see CNN acting as the propaganda arm for the Obama administration in its bid to sell a government takeover of the US health care system. Worse yet, the network uses school children to help the President sell his flawed plan.
It’s no longer just indoctrination instead of education, but now we’re seeing the MSM volunteer its services to the Propaganda Ministry of the administration.
The Supreme Court joined in a fight between the ACLU and the federal government over a World War I memorial in the shape of a cross. While neither legal team hit the ball over the fence, the majority seems inclined to save this cross in what will be the first religious liberty case of the new Court.
On Oct. 7, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Salazar v. Buono. This case is a decade-long fight over the so-called Mojave cross, pitting Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan against the ACLU’s Peter Eliasberg. (This doesn’t mean Barack Obama necessarily wants to protect this cross. His Justice Department has the duty of protecting every federal law, regardless of what he and his staff think of those laws.)
In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) erected a cross on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert as a memorial to all those who served in World War I, along with a plaque dedicating it to those servicemen.
This cross in the middle of the desert also happens to be in the middle of a national park. Congress created the Mojave National Preserve in 1994, the land of which includes the cross on Sunrise Rock.
Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decided that the war memorial constituted a grave threat to the republic. So they backed a former National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, to bring a lawsuit to have the cross removed.
(18) America’s lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.
President Obama has too much intellectual pride to make such a specious argument, so instead we have to keep hearing it from his half-wit supporters.
These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We’re 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a “life expectancy” problem than a “Democratic math competency” problem.
But also, as described in last week’s column, the citizenry’s health is not the same thing as the citizenry’s health care system.
Besides America’s high rate of infant mortality — based on biology and lifestyle choices, not medical care — Americans are also more likely to overeat or smoke than people in other developed nations. And the two biggest killers in the Western world are obesity and smoking.
Liberals shouldn’t have to be reminded how fat Americans are, inasmuch as they are always chortling about it. A 2004 New York Times article leeringly quoted a foreign doctor, saying: “We Europeans, whenever we came to America, we always noticed the enormous number of obese people on the streets.” I note that these are the same people who openly worship Michael Moore.
For those Americans who want to fight back against the menacing expansion of government and the insanely irresponsible spending of the Obama administration, there is only one way to succeed: electing more Republicans to high office.
If the public fails to elect GOP candidates for the Senate, the House, governorships, state legislatures and, ultimately, the presidency there is simply no way to derail the leftist agenda that menaces liberty and prosperity.
Many sincere patriots will object to this formulation, insisting that we must elect more conservatives, not just more Republicans.
The question then becomes, if the needed conservative candidates arent running as Republicans, what party would they represent? If theyre conservative Democrats (a designation that increasingly seems like a contradiction in terms) their election to the House and Senate would return Pelosi and Reid to power along with their ultra-liberal, Democratic committee chairs like Rangel, Conyers, Frank, Dodd, Leahy, Kerry, Waxman, and so forth. President Obamas ability to bully Blue Dog Democrats to do his bidding shows that empowering even those Democrats who describe themselves as independent minded only serves to strengthen the hand of the reigning leftists in the nations capital. Does the fact that Democratic Senator David Casey of Pennsylvania happens to be pro-life make him any less a reliable cog in the Obama machine as it lurches through record deficits and the relentless growth of government?
Of course, some purists insist that true conservatives will never identify as either Republicans or Democrats and will instead win office as independents or representatives of fringe parties (say the Libertarians, or the Constitution Party). This supposition ignores the consistent record of failure for third and fourth and fifth party candidates at every level for more than 200 years of American history. Occasionally, quirky free spirits will win governorships as independents (like Angus King of Maine, or Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, or the notorious Jesse Ventura of Minnesota) but these exceedingly rare victories never bring political realignment or the emergence of a new party infrastructure (Maine, Connecticut and Minnesota have long-ago returned to Democratic or Republican rule, demonstrating that their third-party flirtations represented flukes, not breakthroughs). In Congress and the Senate, the only independents in recent decades have been representatives from New England (Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) who end up caucusing with the Democrats in any event.
Even if some miracle occurred and some new party elected five, ten or even twenty members of the House and Senate (a virtual impossibility), what difference would it make if the Democrats maintain their majorities?
