Mission Accomplished

The post “Mission Accomplished” Obama Foreign policy on Terrorism where Al-Qaeda is “crippled” and on no longer as big a threat.

A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on the United States and the West.

The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”

The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.

“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.

The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”

The Ansar al-Mujahidin network is a well-known jihadist forum that in the past has published reliably accurate propaganda messages from al Qaeda and its affiliates. (WT)

OBAMACARE

Some families could get priced out of health insurance due to what’s being called a glitch in President Barack Obama’s overhaul law. IRS regulations issued Wednesday failed to fix the problem as liberal backers of the president’s plan had hoped.

As a result, some families that can’t afford the employer coverage that they are offered on the job will not be able to get financial assistance from the government to buy private health insurance on their own. How many people will be affected is unclear.

The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress wrote the law.

I Guess you had to pass it to find out what is NOT IN IT, 3 years later! 🙂

The problem seems to be the way the law defined affordable.

BUT THAT WAS POINT OF THIS MONSTER, RIGHT?? I guess it depends on the what definition of “affordable” is? 🙂

Congress said affordable coverage can’t cost more than 9.5 percent of family income. People with coverage the law considers affordable cannot get subsidies to go into the new insurance markets. The purpose of that restriction was to prevent a stampede away from employer coverage.

Congress went on to say that what counts as affordable is keyed to the cost of self-only coverage offered to an individual worker, not his or her family. A typical workplace plan costs about $5,600 for an individual worker. But the cost of family coverage is nearly three times higher, about $15,700, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

So if the employer isn’t willing to chip in for family premiums – as most big companies already do – some families will be out of luck. They may not be able to afford the full premium on their own, and they’d be locked out of the subsidies in the health care overhaul law.

Employers are relieved that the Obama administration didn’t try to put the cost of providing family coverage on them.

“They are bound by the law and cannot extend further than what the law provides,” said Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation.

Obamanomics: The economy shrank last quarter, the deficit topped $1 trillion last year, U.S. debt shot up $5 trillion in the past four, and joblessness is at 7.8%. Boy, President Obama sure inherited an economic mess, didn’t he?

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the economy “unexpectedly” declined 0.1% in last three months of 2012, the first decline since early 2009.

The Obama administration, naturally, tried to look for scapegoats, this time settling on Hurricane Sandy and Republican-induced uncertainty over the “fiscal cliff” outcome.

But if that were the case, why was the administration running around late last year telling everyone how great the economy was doing?

And why didn’t any economist predict a downturn?

The average forecast among 50 economists surveyed earlier this month was for 1.6% GDP growth, and the most pessimistic pegged it at just under 1%.

Liberals were also quick to blame alleged spending cuts. Jared Bernstein — a former Obama economic advisor — complained that “austerity at (a) time when we need a fiscal push” is the problem.

“Congress is applying medieval techniques,” he wrote, “bleeding the patient while ignoring the indicators both here and abroad as to how that’s working.”

An interesting theory. Except that while the BEA says defense spending declined in Q4, overall federal spending was up $31 billion compared with Q4 2011 and up $98 billion compared with Q3 2012, according to monthly spending reports out of the Treasury Department.

And even assuming that the “huge cuts” from the sequester go through, spending this year will be about $570 billion higher than in 2008, and will consume 22.4% of GDP — a level reached only four times in the 63 years before Obama.

So maybe it’s the lack of adequate stimulus?

Perhaps, but only if you ignore the Fed’s massive ongoing pump-priming efforts, and the fact that the deficit in Q4 alone topped $292 billion — nearly double the deficit for all of 2007.

The lack of good excuses might explain why Obama and Co. are so desperate to put a positive spin on the numbers.

Democratic Party communications director Brad Woodhouse actually tweeted that this was “the best-looking contraction in U.S. GDP you’ll ever see.”

That’s one way of looking at it.

Another is that slow to non-existent growth has become the new normal thanks to Obama’s growth-choking policies, with the economy consistently underperforming expectations.

When Obama first took office, he forecast 4% GDP growth for 2011 and 2012, as did most everyone else.

Actual results: 1.8% growth in 2011 and 2.2% in 2012.

Just last summer, Obama was saying that Q4-over-Q4 growth in 2012 would be 2.6%. Actual result: 1.5%.

Now with Obama’s huge tax hikes kicking in, his regulators once again running amok, ObamaCare’s storm clouds looming ever closer, and deficits expected to top $1 trillion for the fifth year, why should anyone be surprised if the economy underperforms again in 2013? (IBD)

But that’s Bush/Republicans/Tea Partier’s Fault!!!
Now onto the next Crisis…
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Advertisements

Sound & Fury

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

“You can be partisan, you can have a strong sense of the rightness of your position, but democracy and certainly legislative bodies require compromise, and you can’t let compromise become a dirty word because then you veer towards fanaticism,” she said. “I mean, we were just talking about extremists who think it’s only their way, they’re the ones who have the truth, none of the rest of us have any kind of claim on what is real, in their views.” — Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

So how do liberals like her say such things and totally not mean a damn word of it?

And you’re supposed to buy it!

Unreal.

Those crazy crackers on the right — if they start with their very hateful language — that is going to kill them in the same way that they learned, at their little retreat, let’s not talking about rape.”- former DNC communications director Karen Finney

But “crackers” a ‘racist’ derisive word for white people isn’t racist because a Liberal said it!

The same Karen Finney in 2012: “Look, I think it will be interesting to see if these guys rally around Herman Cain with as much veracity as they have these last couple of weeks now that it’s clear that a whole other layer of black sexuality has been infused into this,” Finney explained. “Also remember these women were ten years younger than we’re seeing them now. So that whole power dynamic. This is an older man, this younger women. White women, Black man.”

Nudge, Nudge say no More! 🙂
Researchers in Norway recently found that global warming is less severe than previously predicted by the United Nations climate authority, causing skeptics to argue that a growing body of data is on their side while experts cast doubt on the results.“It’s one in a substantial number of papers appearing in scientific literature within the last year or two, reducing the forecast global warming for the 21st century,” Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.“This is just more evidence that the sensitivity was overestimated,” he added.

But Super Storm Sandy was Global Warming!!!
Freezing weather is Global Warming.
Tsunamis are Global Warming.

“Forecasts for the 21st century that were made in the late 1990s had better be revised downward because it’s very clear that we are going to go pretty close to a quarter of a century, at least, without a warming trend,” Michaels told TheDC News Foundation.

Michaels made the same claim in a 2002 study that also found that global warming “will be modest and near the low end” of what the IPCC had projected in it’s third assessment on climate change. Now, a growing number of scientists are starting to revise down their warming estimates for the 21st century.

“It’s appropriate to jump off a ship when it begins to take on water,” Michaels said, “If you look at the monthly temperature anomalies from the University of East Anglia you see no significant trend in any direction going back to the fall of 1996 which would put us at 17 years of no trend.”

But if your religion is Global Warming then you can’t violate your faith for science.
So the Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!
You must believe everything I say!
John Stossel: Watching President Obama’s inaugural, I was confused. It looked like a new king was being crowned. Thousands cheered, like subjects worshipping nobility. At a time when America faces unsustainable debt and terrible economic troubles, why such pomp?Maybe it’s because so many people tell themselves presidents can solve any problem, like fairy-tale kings — or gods.
And Obama and his ‘bots (and Ministry of Truth) don’t think so?Government can solve anything.

At his inaugural, President Obama himself said, “The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few.”

But then Obama went on to say that his privileged few should force the rest of us to do a zillion things.

He said, “We must do these things, together.” But what “together” means to big-government folks is that they have a vision — and all of us, together, must go deeper into debt to pay for their vision, even if we disagree.

We can afford this, as the president apparently told John Boehner, because America does not have a spending problem.

But, of course, we do have a spending problem, and a debt problem, and the president knows this.

But doesn’t care. We just need more revenue!

The answer to over-spending drug addicts is to give them EVEN MORE DRUGS!

And if you don’t you want to starve kids, kill grandma and force people in poverty!!

Senator Obama said this: “I rise, today, to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure and our government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

Right!

Sen. Obama went on: “Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased from $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion — and yes, I said trillion with a ‘T’!”

But remember, the debt is all George Bush’s Fault!!

So liberals will say anything with sound and fury, but it signifies nothing!

Nothing but Partisan pettiness.

And you’re supposed to buy it.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

 

Shout Louder: Food For the Sowell V

An old-time trial lawyer once said, “When your case is weak, shout louder!”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted louder when asked about the Obama administration’s story last fall that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. ambassador’s quarters in Benghazi, Libya, was due to an anti-Islamic video that someone in the United States had put on the Internet, and thereby provoked a protest that escalated into violence.

She shouted:

“We had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Students of propaganda may admire the skill with which she misdirected people’s attention.

After all, she is now running for President in 2016.

But those of us who are still old-fashioned enough to think that the truth matters cannot applaud her success.

Let’s go back to square one.

After the attack on the American ambassador’s quarters in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the Obama administration immediately blamed it on the anti-Islamic video.

Moreover, this version of what happened was not just a passing remark. It was a story that the administration kept repeating insistently.

Hoax In High Places

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice repeated that story on five different television talk shows on the same Sunday. President Obama himself repeated the same story at the United Nations.

The man who put the anti-Islamic video on the Internet was arrested for a parole violation, creating more media coverage to keep attention on this theme.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?” Secretary Clinton now asks.

What difference did it make at the time?

Obviously the Obama administration thought it made a difference, with an election coming up. Prior to the attack, the administration’s political theme was that Barack Obama had killed Osama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy SEALs), vanquished al-Qaida and was now in the process of putting the terrorist threat behind us.

To have the attack in Benghazi be seen as a terrorist attack — and a devastating one — would have ruined this picture, with an election coming up.

“Mission Accomplished” Anyone? 🙂

The key question that remains unanswered to this day is:

What speck of evidence is there that the attack in Benghazi was due to the much-discussed video or that there was ever any protest demonstration outside the ambassador’s quarters?

If there is no evidence whatever, then the whole attempt to say that a protest over a video escalated into an attack was a deliberate hoax by people who knew better.

There is no point in the administration saying that they did not have all the facts about the attack immediately. All the facts may never be known.

But the real question is:

Did you have even a single fact that would substantiate your repeated claims that some video led to a protest in Benghazi that got out of hand and led to the attack?

Interestingly, Hillary Clinton herself was not featured in this campaign, even though as secretary of State she was a key figure.

Hillary was not about to create video footage that could come back to haunt her if she runs for president of the United States in 2016.

In a larger context, the Benghazi attack showed that you cannot unilaterally end the “war on terror” or the terrorists’ war on us, by declaring victory.

For years, the Bush administration’s phrase “war on terror” was avoided like the plague by the Obama administration, even if that required the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as “workplace violence.”

But, no matter how clever the rhetoric, reality nevertheless rears its ugly head.

Once the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi is seen for what it was — a highly coordinated and highly successful operation by terrorists who were said to have been vanquished — that calls into question the Obama administration’s Middle East foreign policy.

That is why it still matters.

But Obama and his minions in The  Ministry of Truth have moved on to other distractions, Gun Control and Amnesty.
Benghazi? What’s that? Oh that thing, that’s old news stop worrying about that. You’re just trying to hurt the President by bringing that up. Go away….
We have the Coronation succession of Queen Hilary I to plan. Go away you partisan pests…
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Trapped

Tell Me, this isn’t the same here and one reason why we have such an increase in “disability” and people just giving up looking.

And the new “dependent” voter.

The Sun (London UK): A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.

FYI: Skiving is British for lay about gold-bricking person, aka Lazy.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

I looked it up, the average apparently for a 47″ flat screen is about £1900-2000 British pounds.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

Do the Math.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

 

pahe 10 graphic

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

So that’s $2,312,61. Per month or $27,751.32 a year. That”s well above minimum wage in this country. Of course, they have a flat 17.5% VAT tax on everything and Inland Revenue (think IRS) but still I have had many jobs that paid less than that.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Tell Me, Liberals aren’t thinking the same thing!

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.

Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.

Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.

“They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”

Danny, who quit his job as a supermarket shelf-stacker after eight months, admitted: “I could easily go and work for my dad. He’s got a job for me, but could only afford to pay for my travel and accommodation because I’d be going around the country.

“After that he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay me a wage, so I’d be worse off.

“The same would happen if I was to work somewhere like a supermarket. If I was earning less than £26,000 a year, there wouldn’t be any point. I’d be no better off. Who in their right mind would do that?” The pair spoke after we revealed last Sunday that Lithuanian Natalija Belova, 33, branded Britain “a soft touch” for giving her £14,408 annual benefits. Mum-of-one Belova told how she lives a life of luxury in Watford, Herts, thanks to our “strange system”, adding: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.”

British Minimum wage : £6.08 to £6.19 an hour on October 1 2012

And yesterday Gina agreed. She said: “The only way we’d ever be better off is by both working. But then childcare would probably be one of our wages gone, and put us back in a more difficult position.

“We don’t feel ashamed for being on benefits. Neither of us have the slightest bit of guilt towards the taxpayers as both of our parents have been paying into the tax system for the last 30 years.

“So we are just getting back our parents’ huge contributions. My dad earns £65,000 a year so he’s paid more than his fair share of tax, so I don’t see what the problem is. The fault lies with the system, not us. There’s just no incentive to find work when we’ve got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?”

The couple, who live in Hants (Southern England), receive £340 a week, made up of £150 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 in Job Seeker’s Allowance. They pay just £25 towards their spacious £625-a-month home.

Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV and a leather sofa. A laptop and Tullulah-Rose’s toys are scattered around the room.

The couple’s monthly outgoings are £240 on food, £40 phone bill for their shared Nokia and an £80 payment towards their TV. They spend the same on tobacco as they do on their daughter’s milk and nappies.

The pair, who want another child, say they would need to earn at least £2,200 a month before tax to make working worth their while.

Danny said: “We’ve thought about a lot of things we wouldn’t normally have considered. Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn’t go down that route.

“We simply want the best for our daughter, which means even shoplifting becomes a temptation. We’d never do it, but being in this situation and feeling trapped changes you.

“We would work, but it’s just not worth our while because without qualifications we’ll only earn about £14,000 a year. That’s a lot less than what we get now. We need more money so we can maintain the way we live now but have a few extras, like holidays.

“People don’t understand — we’re actually stuck on benefits. In fact, we feel trapped.” Danny and Gina thought about going to college, but could not decide which course to take.

Gina said: “We have discussed getting more qualifications but just thought there’s no point when we don’t know what we want to do in the future. We wouldn’t know where to start.”

The couple are adamant that whatever they do in future, they want to enjoy the same luxuries as now. Gina said: “We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It’s important she looks nice.

“We like a takeaway (Take out) too, Why shouldn’t we? It isn’t like I’m some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It’s silly to think I’d actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.

“Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It’s actually really hard for us. We’re in a lose-lose situation here.”

And with reports out that the Birth rate in the US has been falling just as the largest population is retiring is going to make this kind of “trapped” dependence very, very, very costly to everyone.

But, he it’s better than working hard. 🙂

Every job in the last 25+ years I’ve had prior to my current one has paid me less than this a year. And I’m still not “rich”.

Makes you wonder I even bother…But at least I’m not “trapped”…Yet… 🙂

 

The Ultimate Reality Show

“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”– Thomas Paine

Mark Steyn: When it comes to facing the music, Obama is peerless at making a song and dance about tunes nobody’s whistling without ever once warbling the real big numbers (16 trillion). But, like Beyoncé, he’s totally cool and has a cute butt.

Or as Sen. Biden put it: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” 🙂

A couple of days later, it fell to the 45th president-in-waiting to encapsulate the ethos of the age in one deft sound bite: What difference does it make? Hillary Clinton’s instantly famous riposte at the Benghazi hearings is such a perfect distillation that it surely deserves to be the national motto of the United States. They should put it on Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin, and in the presidential oath:

“Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

“Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Well, it’s the difference between cool and reality — and, as Hillary’s confident reply appeared to suggest, and the delirious media reception of it confirmed, reality comes a poor second in the Obama era. The presumption of conservatives has always been that one day cold, dull reality would pierce the klieg-light sheen of Obama’s glamour. Indeed, that was the premise of Mitt Romney’s reductive presidential campaign. But, just as Beyoncé will always be way cooler than some no-name operatic soprano or a male voice choir, so Obama will always be cooler than a bunch of squaresville yawneroos boring on about jobs and debt and entitlement reform. Hillary’s cocksure sneer to Senator Johnson of Wisconsin made it explicit. At a basic level, the “difference” is the difference between truth and falsity, but the subtext took it a stage further: No matter what actually happened that night in Benghazi, you poor sad loser Republicans will never succeed in imposing that reality and its consequences on this administration.

And so a congressional hearing — one of the famous “checks and balances” of the American system — is reduced to just another piece of Beltway theater. “The form was still the same, but the animating health and vigor were fled,” as Gibbon wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But he’s totally uncool, too. So Hillary lip-synced far more than Beyoncé, and was adored for it. “As I have said many times, I take responsibility,” she said. In Washington, the bold declarative oft-stated acceptance of responsibility is the classic substitute for responsibility: rhetorically “taking responsibility,” preferably “many times,” absolves one from the need to take actual responsibility even once.

In the very same self-serving testimony, the secretary of state denied that she’d ever seen the late Ambassador Stevens’s cables about the deteriorating security situation in Libya on the grounds that “1.43 million cables come to my office”– and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any. She is as out of it as President Jefferson, who complained to his secretary of state James Madison, “We have not heard from our ambassador in Spain for two years. If we have not heard from him this year, let us write him a letter.” Today, things are even worse. Hillary has apparently not heard from any of our 1.43 million ambassadors for four years. When a foreign head of state receives the credentials of the senior emissary of the United States, he might carelessly assume that the chap surely has a line of communication back to the government he represents. For six centuries or so, this has been the minimal requirement for functioning inter-state relations. But Secretary Clinton has just testified that, in the government of the most powerful nation on earth, there is no reliable means by which a serving ambassador can report to the cabinet minister responsible for foreign policy. And nobody cares: What difference does it make?

Four Americans are dead, but not a single person involved in the attack and the murders has been held to account. Hey, what difference does it make? Lip-syncing the national anthem beats singing it. Peddling a fictitious narrative over the coffin of your “friend” is more real than being an incompetent boss to your most vulnerable employees. And mouthing warmed-over clichés about vowing to “bring to justice” those responsible is way easier than actually bringing anyone to justice.

And so it goes:

Another six trillion in debt? What difference does it make?

An economic-stimulus bill that stimulates nothing remotely connected with the economy? What difference does it make?

The Arab Spring? Aw, whose heart isn’t stirred by those exhilarating scenes of joyful students celebrating in Tahrir Square? And who cares after the cameras depart that Egypt’s in the hands of a Jew-hating 9-11 truther whose goons burn churches and sexually assault uncovered women?

Obama is the ultimate reality show, and real reality can’t compete. Stalin famously scoffed, “How many divisions has the Pope?” Secretary Clinton was more audacious: How many divisions has reality? Not enough.

The Housewives of ‘X’ have nothing on Obama and Company. Reality is a concept to them. A concept to be shaped and mold to appear as they want it to appear not as it actually is.

It’s the Bachelor, the fairytale. Handsome man, chased woman. They find love. Everything’s wonderful.

Unfortunately, for us reality is more John & Kate +8 (trillion in debt) but its projected to be American Idol with Obama as the Host.

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grand-children’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
― Carl Sagan

When fantasy is more interesting and more desired than reality you get Obama.

When the fantasy endsReality is going to be a very harsh mistress.

Bust at least we can secure in the knowledge that it will be Bush/Rich people/Republican’s/Tea Partiers Fault! 🙂

Veni Vidi Vici

Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama’s health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

ObamaCare allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

There rich, I’m sure they can afford it. After all, they voted for Obama because of his Health Care and their Entitlements….

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

Workers covered on the job would be able to avoid tobacco penalties by joining smoking cessation programs, because employer plans operate under different rules. But experts say that option is not guaranteed to smokers trying to purchase coverage individually. (DC)

So what next after Smokers?
First they came for the smokers
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a smoker.
Then they came for the junk food
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a concerned
Then they came for the “fat” people,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t fat (I thought).
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Meat? Salt? Drinks? What won’t they stop at, in the name of “health care”?

Nothing. Why would they. It’s for your own good! and it makes them “feel” good.

We are from the Government and we are here to help you… 🙂

Obama: Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But central authority to a liberal IS the answer to everything. And Entitlements are the answer to “fairness” and “equality” and “compassion” and success is bad (except when you fund their political campaigns so they can do even more “good” for themselves and thus for you…:) )
“In 1960, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, it counts for nearly two-thirds of federal spending. Welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does combined.” Megyn Kelly
But if you cut anything other than Rich people’s loopholes and the Military you’re a heartless, racist, evil bastard who just want old people and kids to starve and die!! 🙂

Obama: The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise.

So if we have 15 more Solyndras that is better than one evil Keystone Pipeline. Oil is evil Oil companies, doubly so. So what if it’s cheaper and more efficient and everyone uses it now we don’t care.

So what if the technology is not there. It makes us feel superior.

So what if the Chinese kicked our asses on it.

So what if it Many , Many Times MORE expensive. So what. It’s Better for you. 🙂

It makes us feel better about ourselves. And you will too, or else!

California has been a leader in Renewable Energy production, in part due to federal and state level policies that provide incentives for producers of renewable power. However, a new report found that California’s Energy policies will raise state power rates and associated costs by nearly 33 percent.

The report by the free-market Pacific Research Institute specifically focuses on the additional costs imposed by a state mandate that requires 33 percent of its power come from renewable sources, like wind, solar and geothermal by 2020. PRI estimates that the California renewable portfolio standard will be an additional $5 billion in 2020.

The mandate represents an implicit 27 percent tax on power generation in the state due to the “the forced substitution of expensive power in place of cheaper electricity, particularly in terms of transmission, backup, and generation costs.”

“Moreover, this implicit tax to be imposed upon the California economy will grow each year as the size of the electricity market expands and the RPS requirement forces ever-greater amounts of high-cost power onto the market,” writes PRI senior fellow and report author Benjamin Zycher.

“This perverse effect inexorably will be reflected fully in rising rates paid by consumers, whether directly or indirectly,” Zycher continues.

The costs to California consumers in 2020 will rise by more than 13 percent as a result of the renewable fuel mandate. However, the report notes that even without the mandate, state power rates would rise by nearly 20 percent due to “various capital investments driven by both economic and regulatory factors,” and because of the state’s cap-and-trade program.

All of these policies taken together will cause power rates and costs to rise nearly 33 percent between now and 2020, according to the report.
California already suffers from high retail electricity rates relative to the rest of the country. PRI reports that retail rates in the Golden State are up to 131 percent higher than rates in the Pacific Northwest and 70 percent higher than rates in the Mountain region. In fact, California rates are 53 percent higher than the U.S. as a whole.

“This adverse effect is certain to worsen the other important disadvantages that various California public policies have created in terms of competitive dynamics with other states,” writes Zycher.

State residents are already being hit hard if they do not install solar devices onto their rooftops. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Californians who don’t have solar rooftop installations paid an extra $1.3 billion in yearly power bills.

“The higher costs to be borne by the California economy will not be offset even in part by economic benefits,” concludes Zycher. “That the rising costs to be imposed upon the private sector might engender greater political opposition to the RPS requirements may be a source of hope for policy reform.” (DC)

But don’t worry this won’t hurt the poor and the elderly…and imagine if you’re a smoker too! 🙂
And do you know where the majority of the electric Power from the Palo Verde NUCLEAR Power Station west of Phoenix goes to?
One Guess.
California. 🙂

Gotta love Liberals. Otherwise taking that line from Shakespeare about killing all the lawyers starts to come to  mind. (kidding…no need for Janet to send her goons to my door).

Sort of. 🙂

And lastly, remember when Liberal were insane to destroy Bush (for many reasons even today) over his “handling” of Katrina.

Well, did you know there are  Super storm Sandy victims that are still freezing this winter because of a lack of response by the Government?

But since they are predominately Liberals I’m sure they will give Obama and company a pass right?

It’s no big deal.

Not even a $2500 Debit Card… 🙂

The superstorm destroyed their homes — and the cold weather is playing havoc with their lives.

Sandy-ravaged homeowners have been driven to extremes as they try to survive in houses that are essentially construction sites.

“It’s colder here because of the water,” said Mary Lou Foley, a Breezy Point, Queens, resident who has spent the past week huddling under a slew of comforters and carrying a space heater from room to room.

“It’s 18 degrees in the city, but it feels like 5 because of the wind. It’s just too cold,” the 56-year-old said Thursday.

She has been staying here for the past month without heat, sleeping on a comforter on the floor but she has remained optimistic and says she is “happy.”

I bet if it were Bush Or even Romney,, she wouldn’t be. 🙂

Foley is one of the lucky ones because she has power in some parts of her partially rebuilt house, allowing her to use an electric heater.

But she can only plug in one at a time.

“If I plug in two heaters, I’m afraid I will blow a fuse. So I plug in one heater and try to stay close to it,” she said. “I have to do this until I have power restored.”

Construction crews are working as fast as they can in Sandy-afflicted areas like the Rockaways, but no one can slow down Mother Nature.

But someone has sure slowed down the “outrage”. 🙂
Where are the FEMA trailers that were demanded by the Left the last time?

“It’s freezing in my house,” the mom said. “I’m hearing a lot of horror stories from my neighbors. Their pipes are bursting. It’s that cold.”

Eddie Saman, 47, of New Dorp Beach in Staten Island, insulated his walls with donated blankets in a futile attempt to trap his radiator’s weak heat.

Where’s the outrage?

The Congress passed a relief bill, half of it was Pork for NASCAR, banks and other ‘constituents’ of importance.

Where’s the outrage?

Let’s be “fair” shall we. If you want government to run your life for you because you’re a moron, then you should demand they do a better job of it, just to be “fair” and “equal”… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Does it Matter?

Benghazi Update: Britons and all other westerners were told to leave the Libyan city of Benghazi on Thursday after diplomats received warning of an “imminent” terror threat in the wake of the Algerian hostage siege.

By the way, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Brits? What difference at this point does it make? 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

A day after President Obama vowed an aggressive global war on global warming, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman delivered a political hot potato to the White House in the form of state approval of a re-routed Keystone XL pipeline.

Given the pressing domestic need for a) more reliable sources of oil and b) thousands of long-delayed, good-paying jobs, you might think federal approval of the endeavor with our closest neighbor and best friend is a gimme.

Ah, but we are just three days past the middle of the 2,922-day Obama era. So, it’s much more complicated.

The 1,700-mile long pipeline is designed to carry 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian heavy crude oil from Alberta tar sands excavations to Gulf Coast refineries. The project would create thousands of construction jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on unreliable foreign oil sources, often cited by both American political parties as a good thing.

Heineman, a Republican, had rejected Trans-Canada’s original route through important aquifers and the state’s fragile Sand Hills region, a step the Obama crowd cited for its initial parallel rejection of the facility. A new study by the State Department, which must approve pipelines crossing international borders, isn’t due until late March at the earliest.

By that time, of course, the Obama administration will have a new secretary of State in the form of John Kerry. The about-to-be-former senator has fallen hook, line and sailboat for the global warming bunkum, making approval appear iffy.

Environmentalists, who plan a White House pipeline protest next month, claim the extraction and combustion of such oil volumes would contribute catastrophically to global warming.

Unfortunately for that argument, it’s not like a pipeline defeat will keep that oil in Canadian soil. It will just be exported through another pipeline to the West Coast for sale to China, while alienating the United States’ best neighbor, closest ally and largest trading partner.

Both Republican congressional leaders sought to add approval pressure on Obama Tuesday. Said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

“The President says he’s for an all-of-the-above approach to energy and now it’s time for him to live up to it. Nebraska has taken care of the issues the President raised when he denied the permit, so there’s no more room for excuses or delays and it should be expeditiously approved.”

Added House Speaker John Boehner:

“Nebraska’s approval of a new Keystone XL pipeline route means there is no bureaucratic excuse, hurdle, or catch President Obama can use to delay this project any further. He and he alone stands in the way of tens of thousands of new jobs and energy security.

“Every state along the proposed route supports this project, as does a bipartisan coalition in Congress and a majority of Americans. I recognize all the political pressure the president faces, but with our energy security at stake and many jobs in limbo, he should find a way to say yes.”

In his inaugural address Monday Obama gave numerous nods to his liberal base. “We will respond to the threat of climate change,” he said, “knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

His full text and a complete C-SPAN video are available here.

But the Democrat, who has only 1,458 days left in office, also called for large-scale investments in the nation’s infrastructure to stimulate new jobs and rebuild the country after a decade of war-drained finances.

Although Obama has never appeared bothered by adding some $6 trillion so far to the national debt, now north of $16.3 trillion, the job-creating pipeline expenditures would be private.

So, do you think Obama will choose to come down in favor of his jobs vow or his environmental vow?

Given Obama’s long record of, shall we say, flexible vow-keeping, the answer is most likely, Yes. (IBD)

🙂

After all, he raised the payroll tax on everyone but it was the same as 2 years ago so he didn’t “increase” it.
🙂

So expect doublespeak and much gnashing of someone elses teeth and blaming someone else for it.
That is only if they can’t just ignore it all together.
What does it Matter? 🙂
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok