Thursday, December 26, 2013

Thanks Duck Dynasty for the Christmas Gift

  • Posted by Lloyd Marcus on December 25, 2013 at 3:57pm
  • Duck Dynasty gave me an unexpected wonderful gift for Christmas; a renewed hope in America. Polling on various social issues confirm that liberals have made significant inroads towards secularizing America into a culture in which anything goes.

    The norm on TV is disrespectful kids scolding their parents, cussing, youths sleeping around, the promotion of homosexuality and poking fun at Christians. Traditional principles and values are on the chopping block.

    Several months ago, I heard about this cable show, Duck Dynasty, that was kicking American Idol's butt in the ratings on Wednesday nights. Since the recent controversy surrounding the show, I learned that Duck Dynasty is huge; the highest rated show in cable history.

    So what does the show's popularity tell me? It tells me that instinctively people are drawn to things wholesome and good; traditional principles and values.

    I watched a recently produced family Christmas movie. While it was somewhat enjoyable, a subtext of the movie was the female lead feeling hurt over the male lead's reluctance to ask her to move in with him. Note that marriage was not on her agenda.

    Then, I watched my favorites, “It's A Wonderful Life”, “The Wiz of Oz”, “A Christmas Carol” and “The Sound of Music”. There is a reason that millions of people feel their Christmas season is not complete without viewing at least one of these classics. These old movies possess that sappy wholesome intangible something that makes us feel good, safe, warm and happy.

    Neither the coarsening of our culture or liberal indoctrination have been able to destroy millions of Duck Dynasty viewer's instinctive attraction to wholesome tradition family values.

    So thank you Duck Dynasty. Thank you for letting me know that the battle for the culture of America is not over. Perhaps, Phil Robertson's leadership will inspire more Americans to push-back against the tyranny of political correctness.

    I still get a thrill hearing George Bailey say in “It's A Wonderful Life”, “Burt do you know me? My mouths bleedin' Burt! Zuzu's petals! Merry Christmas!”; Judy Garland as Dorothy singing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”; the nun singing “Climb Every Mountain” in “The Sound of Music”.  Yes, I am just a sappy old fashion Christmas kind of guy.

    Thus, I will close quoting Tiny Tim in “A Christmas Carol”, “God bless us everyone.”

    Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

    Monday, December 23, 2013

    Liberalism is sin

  • Posted by Judson Phillips on December 23, 2013 at 8:05am in Tea Party Nation Forum

    If you try to understand liberalism, you will either duct tape your head to keep it from exploding or end up with a serious drinking problem.

    Liberalism does not make sense.  That is, unless you understand one fundamental underpinning of liberalism.

    Liberalism is sin.

    Most people have an immediate reaction to that statement.  Either they support it or totally reject it based on the assumption it is a religious dissertation on liberalism. 

    It is not.  Religion has almost nothing to do with it.

    If religion has nothing to do with it, how is liberalism a sin?

    To understand why liberalism is a sin, there are a couple of concepts that must be understood.  First, the world as we know it is government by laws.  There are laws that govern science, math, economics and liberty. 

    These laws exist whether we like them or not.  And they may not be violated without consequences. 

    Sin is not just violating the laws of God.  It is violating the laws of nature. 

    Gravity is not just a good idea, it is the law.  If anyone doubts that, go jump from a tall building and you will quickly discover the penalty for violating the law of gravity.

    Economics has certain laws.  Even if economists cannot agree on a lot of things, there are certain rules that apply.  If you create too many dollars chasing too few products, you have inflation.  In other words, if there is a fiat currency, you cannot simply keep printing money.  If the laws of economics are violated, there is a disastrous result.  If the laws of economics are properly followed, the end result is prosperity.  Liberals love to sin against the laws of economics and the end result is always poverty.

    Nature has certain laws as well.  Most men and women want to form a family so they can create the next generation.  Destroy the incentive to create a family you end up with poverty and carnage.  Urban America is a classic example.  Government policy since 1965 has been to destroy the family in urban America. 

    What is the result?  In urban America you have huge pockets of poverty.  In urban America you have an abundance of crime.  Single parenthood is the surest ticket to poverty for a family and for the male children of the single mother, the chances of becoming a prison statistic increase astronomically.

    Liberalism as a sin is simply willfully violating the laws of God, man and nature. 

    People instinctively understand that you do not steal from your neighbor, kill another human being or harm an unborn child.  Liberals sever their reality from the base that gives our existence stability.

    Liberals take money from the targeted group and give it to the preferred group.  Liberals debase the currency so they can spend other people’s money.  Liberals have taken the language and twisted it apart from any meaning. 

    Liberals are like Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

    Liberals are like Humpty Dumpty.  Tolerance means you must accept whatever they do.  Fairness means benefits for the preferred class at the cost of the class that is not preferred.  Equality means taking wealth or rights from one and giving it to another.

    Conservatives joke about Barack Obama and his narcissism.  Yet, Obama is the ultimate expression of liberalism.  The liberal says behold I am the God of nature and nature’s laws, therefore  I am above nature’s laws.

    Liberals believe they can do anything they want without the consequences of the laws of nature.  They will do things mere mortals consider to be immoral and do so with impunity.  They violate the laws of economics, liberty and nature. 

    Unfortunately for the liberal there are far too often consequences. 

    Tragically, time after time, we see it is not just the liberal who pays for the sins of his arrogance. 

    The Bible says, “The wages of sin are death.”  Unfortunately for too many people, the wages of the sins of liberalism are poverty, tyranny and too often, mass murder.

  • Monday, December 16, 2013

    The War on Rich White Men

  • Posted by Lloyd Marcus on December 16, 2013 at 4:31am
  • I heard a knock on the door of my hotel room. It was Donald. “Turn on Megyn Kelly. She is reporting about an MSNBC commentator’s claim that using the term “Obamacare” is the same as calling him the N word.”

    MSNBC's Melissa Harris Perry's accusation is absurd. It is an obvious weak attempt to distance the president from Obamacare which is wreaking havoc in the lives of millions of Americans who are losing their health care.

    What I found most disturbing and what I wish to focus on is Perry's evil attempt to gin up hate against “wealthy white men” who she claims created the term “Obamacare” to demean and undermine the black president.

    Due to the Obama Administration playing the race card to win every argument and silence opposition, America is polarized along racial lines. Perry's false accusation is like throwing gasoline on the flames of national racial tensions; as irresponsible and cruel as screaming fire in a crowded auditorium.

    Perry's specific use of the term “wealthy white men” was insidiously strategic. Low info blacks in my family along with blacks across America will believe Perry's nonsense to be the gospel truth. With the wave of black flash mob violence and the rising incidents of the racially motivated knockout game, the last thing we need as a nation is another black TV celeb promoting a racially charged false narrative.

    Democrats and liberals like Perry have been promoting the same irresponsible, divisive and racist false narrative for decades. They claim that all evil in the world is the fault of racist, greedy, sexist and evil wealthy white men usually identified as conservative Republicans.

    Perry's rant is simply the latest blow to the chin of America's white males by a liberal. Flash back to New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd's 2009 article titled, “White Man's Last Stand.” Dowd's article excoriated white men. http://bit.ly/1bsYmc5

    Obama and company's reelection strategy was centered around a shock-and-awe media blitz branding the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney as an evil super-wealthy racist white guy. http://bit.ly/1cz7noO

    So, we get it. While political correctness is the unwritten law of the land, it is open season on trashing and targeting the American rich white male for destruction; even deemed morally correct and patriotic.

    Who is out there giving rich white men props for their many positive contributions to society? Where are their advocates? I am sure with me being an American black man, liberals think it unconscionable that I would suggest such a thing; elevating me to “super” Uncle Tom status.

    In 1895, Booker T. Washington formed a coalition of black leaders, politicians and white philanthropists (rich white guys), with a long-term goal to build the black community's economic strength and pride by focusing on self-help, education and entrepreneurship.

    Perry's ridiculous claim that the term “Obamacare” is the new N word is laughable. The N word is defined as a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person. Sadly, American rich white men are viewed with a similar contemptuousness; despised, kicked around and unfairly mistreated.

    Bottom line, Ms Perry and the whole liberal machine pushing the war on rich white men should be ashamed of themselves. The left's hate speech is ripe with negative consequences for the lives of real people; decent folks who simply worked hard, made good choices and achieved their American Dream.

    Why should they be demonized in such a way as to inspire violence against them? It simply is not right.

    Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
    Chairman: Conservative Campaign Committee
    LloydMarcus.com

    Sunday, December 15, 2013

    Listen Up Republicans

    Since voting for Republicans seems to be pretty much the same as voting for the Democrats I will not vote in any election from now on that does not have a strong Conservative (Tea Party) or Libertarian candidate.  Quite a few of my family also agree with me on this.   Goodbye!

    Saturday, December 14, 2013

    Obama wins award

    December 13, 2013

    And the Politifact 'Lie of the Year' award goes to...
    Posted by Staff

    The political fact-checking organization Politifact has deemed President Obama’s claim that if you like your plan you can keep it under the healthcare overhaul its “Lie of the Year.”

    “It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic plan to bring historic change to America’s health insurance system,” Politifact wrote. “But the promise was impossible to keep.”

    Millions of people have been told by their insurers that their plans will be canceled under the Affordable Care Act, despite Obama’s promises that no one who liked their plan would lose it.

    The White House announced a workaround earlier this year at a press conference in which Obama said he heard “loud and clear” why individuals were upset over receiving the cancellation notices despite his promise.

    From Twitter:

    Wise Man Phil@WiseManPhil 57m

    To those who use this horrific day in history as an opportunity to pursue an idiotic & misguided political agenda, I pray for your sick soul

     

    Wise Man Phil@WiseManPhil 1h

    Friends that don't accept you for who you are, aren't really your friends. Your true friends will never try to change you.

     

    The Golden Mirror@TheGoldenMirror 2h

    Happiness lies on your own path. Don't follow others, who follow others, who follow others, who follow ...

     

    Wise Man Si@WiseManSi 2h

    I'm not on this Earth to please anyone. If you have a problem with the way I live my life, that's your problem.

     

    Joel Osteen@JoelOsteen 2h

    You are not an accident. You have been made in the image of Almighty God, and He did not make any mistakes.

     

    Wise Miss Kay@WiseMissKay 3h

    Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.

    Sunday, December 08, 2013

    Ex-Official Says FBI Can Secretly Activate an Individual’s Webcam Without the Indicator Light Turning On

    The FBI can secretly activate a computer’s webcam to spy on an individual without turning on the indicator light, a former official revealed to the Washington Post in an article published Friday.

    According to the Washington Post’s account of what Marcus Thomas — former assistant director of the FBI’s Operational Technology Division in Quantico — said, “The FBI has been able to covertly activate a computer’s camera — without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording — for several years, and has used that technique mainly in terrorism cases or the most serious criminal investigations.”

    “Because of encryption and because targets are increasingly using mobile devices, law enforcement is realizing that more and more they’re going to have to be on the device — or in the cloud,” Thomas added, in reference to remote storage services. “There’s the realization out there that they’re going to have to use these types of tools more and more.”

    TheBlaze has previously reported on hackers using remote access tools to activate an individual’s webcam and spy on them.

    This post has been updated to reflect that Thomas is an ex-FBI official.

    Wednesday, December 04, 2013

    Just when you thought Obama and the liberals couldn’t sink any lower :

    Health Reform: A cancer patient who spoke out against the cancellation of his insurance by ObamaCare now faces an IRS audit he may not live to see, and says he'll pay the fine rather than burden his family.

    Bill Elliott knows the meaning of the adage that the only two things that are certain are death and taxes, for he is now staring both in the face.

    Like the Tea Party before him, Elliott faces an IRS audit for speaking out against the ObamaCare that canceled his insurance coverage he liked and was promised he could keep.

    He appeared recently on Charleston, S.C.'s WQSC and was told by the radio host that "you stood up and spoke out about how ObamaCare screwed over your insurance and probably would kill you, and what's the next thing that happened? You get audited by the IRS. That is not a coincidence."

    Elliott responded, "No, it's not."

    "I like my doctor. I love my insurance," Elliott told Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly last Thursday night. "They were paying just about everything, including medication and medical devices."

    Then he got the letter that told him that his cancer was considered "beyond a catastrophic pre-existing condition" and his plan was being canceled because of new regulations.

    Elliott says he was given the option of a new $1,500-per-month plan, up from the $180 per month or so that he'd been paying.

    "Now with ObamaCare, the man that I've got looked into it, they are not going to pay for pharmaceuticals or medical devices. MRI that I had last month before I got canceled was $3,000. Now, if I have to have another one, it costs me out of my pocket $3,000," Elliott told Kelly on Nov. 7.

    It started so innocently

    Years ago it started so innocently,  people started saying Happy Holidays to embrace both Christmas and New Years.  No malice intended – no anti Christian intent.  

    But then Liberalism took hold and carried it to a whole new level and it quickly became an Anti Christian movement, trying to take Chirst out of the holiday.  Now it has become   en epidemic. 

    Unfortunately we Christians didn’t realize what was going on until it was too late and now we have to push back with everything we have to overcome this liberal movement.   As nativity scenes disappear from public places we need to put them in our yards and maybe start wearing crosses and other religious symbols on our person.  

    Monday, December 02, 2013

    Miscellaneous Thoughts

    It occurred to me this Thanksgiving that everyone went to such lengths to try new and exotic recipes that nothing tasted like it should.   The sweet potatoes with brown sugar and pecans did not tast like sweet potatoes.  The yellow squash which I normally love tasted more like sour cream and buttered crackers that the actual squash.  And the turnips did not taste like turnips, etc.

    I would rather cook it, put a little butter on it and serve it so everything would taste the way it is supposed to.

    Wednesday, November 27, 2013

    Obama Closing Vatican Embassy

    Carol Platt Liebau | Nov 26, 2013

    It's hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama administration is hostile to religion in general, and to Catholicism in particular.

    There was his slam on Catholic education. His embrace of pro-abortion extremism. His willingness to have priests arrested if they performed mass on military bases (even voluntarily) during the sequester. And, of course, the hideous ObamaCare HHS mandate falls with particular violence on the First Amendment rights of Catholics.

    So now it's dismaying -- but hardly surprising -- that the Obama administration is moving to close America's Vatican embassy. A bipartisan coalition of former ambassadors to the Holy See are expressing their opposition to the plan, which the administration is trying to justify on that post-9/11 catchall: Security.

    But let's see it for what it really is: A slap in the face to America's Catholics.

    Obama Sinks Israel

    Ben Shapiro | Nov 27, 2013

    This week, President Barack Obama doomed Israel to a choice between unpalatable options: either striking at Iran's nuclear facilities in its own defense and thereby internationally isolating itself, or watching as its most ardent enemy goes nuclear. The deal, put into place with Iran by the Obama administration, allows Iran to continue developing nuclear-enrichment processes, encompasses virtually no real monitoring standards and grants cash to a regime busily preparing for a second Holocaust.

    Obama made the conscious decision to shove Israel into this corner for two reasons. First, because he is an egotist determined to divert attention from his domestic political woes. Second, because he is a hard-core, anti-Israel fanatic who believes that Israeli power represents the chief threat to peace in the Middle East.

    The first rationale explains Obama's timing. After years of flirting with Iran -- a flirtation dating all the way back to his presidential campaign of 2008, during which he said he would engage in direct negotiations with the Islamic theocracy without preconditions - Obama culminated the burgeoning relationship with a rammed-through deal leaving Iran in control of its own nuclear destiny. Why the sudden rush? With his poll numbers dropping precipitously and his signature program, Obamacare, dragging down his presidency, Obama needed a big win.

    The media duly delivered this to Obama by proclaiming his diplomatic blunder an enormous victory. Ignoring the fact that Obama tacitly gave Iran the right to nuclear development in contravention of all United Nations' resolutions and the best interests of the United States, The New York Times proclaimed, "No one can seriously argue that it doesn't make the world safer." The newspaper also called Israel's dismay at the deal "extremist" and "theater," and even admitted that the Iran deal acted as a "welcome change of subject" for Obama.

    The Obama administration, meanwhile, rapidly erected a series of straw men designed to make the president look like a tower of strength rather than the appeaser he is. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately stated that those who opposed the deal thought war should be the "first option" -- an odd proclamation, given Israel's repeated desire to delay action. Obama himself said that the time for "tough talk and bluster" was over -- as though harsh sanctions backed by the threat of force were a bluff. (Which, apparently, they were.)

    Though none of this explains why Obama wanted to make a deal in the first place. Yes, it was a convenient distraction -- but the president of the United States can always find a way to shift the political narrative.

    The truth is that the president despises Israel and always has. He has spent his entire adult life surrounded by Israel-haters, from Professor Derrick Bell to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, from former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi to Jimmy Carter's former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. His current ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has suggested that the United States ought to place troops on Israeli ground to protect Palestinians from those brutal Jews.

    Obama's administration has repeatedly leaked Israeli national security information in order to stop Israel from striking Iran, and Obama himself forced Netanyahu to apologize to the government of Turkey for stopping its flotilla, directed toward helping the terrorist group Hamas, in the Gaza Strip. The Obama administration sees Israel building homes in its capital city of Jerusalem as more of a threat to peace than Iran building nukes.

    Obama's political philosophy dictates that Israel is a colonialist outpost offending the locals -- an unfortunate hangover from the Holocaust instead of a historic Jewish dream and possession. Obama's belief system suggests that Middle Eastern conflict springs not from religious and cultural differences but from Jewish intransigence. So Israel must be stopped. And if that means arming Iran, Obama is happy to do it. If he can while simultaneously winning himself a second Nobel Peace Prize and distracting people from his failed domestic tenure, so much the better.

    Saturday, November 23, 2013

    Pope Francis Stands Up For Christians’ Rights in the Middle East

    Leah Barkoukis | Nov 22, 2013

    Western leaders may be silent about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, but Pope Francis isn’t. Speaking Thursday to a gathering of Eastern rite church leaders that have ties to the Roman Catholic Church, Francis said he would “not rest as long as there are men and women, of any religion, affected in their dignity, deprived of life’s basic necessities, robbed of a future, forced to the status of refugees and asylum-seekers.”

    "I'm very worried about living conditions faced by Christians who are suffering from conflicts and tensions in many areas of the Middle East," Francis said.

    The persecution of Christians in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt and Syria, has worsened considerably since the ousting of the Mubarak regime and during Syria’s civil war. More than 40 churches in Egypt have been burned, Christian laity in Cairo were gunned down and Orthodox bishops in Syria have been kidnapped by rebel forces.

    “We won’t resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians who for two thousand years confess the name of Jesus, as full citizens in social, cultural and religious life of the nations to which they belong,” Francis said.

    Persecution watchdog group Open Doors USA has launched a global petition urging the UN and other world leaders to “act to safeguard all Syrians, including vulnerable Christian communities,” CNS News reports. The group plans to deliver the petition to the UN Security Council on December 10, which is Human Rights day at the international body.

    How Low can MSNBC Go?

    Jeff Crouere | Nov 23, 2013

    MSNBC, the network of far left lunatics has taken their extreme hatred to a new level. Last week, host Martin Bashir called former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “world class idiot” and a “resident dunce.” For good measure, he claimed she possessed a “long deceased mind.”

    What provoked Bashir? In a recent speech, Palin said that “Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children, and borrowing from China. When that note comes due and this isn't racist, so try it. Try it anyway. This isn't racist. But it's going to be like slavery when that note is due.”

    While this view may be controversial and even misguided, it did not merit such a malicious response from Bashir. Sadly, the host did not stop with nasty insults; he then related to his viewers the story of a long deceased slave master who committed horrible acts of brutality, including defecating on those he kept in bondage.

    At that point, Bashir incredibly wished Palin would suffer such barbaric treatment. He read aloud a curse word for excrement and said that Palin “qualified” for a “dose” of such “discipline.” In effect, he wished that Palin would be kept in bondage and that an inhuman slave master would defecate on her.

    Immediately after calling for the torture and mistreatment of Sarah Palin, this broadcaster should have been fired by his network bosses. Unfortunately, nothing happened to Bashir because he works for MSNBC, the same network that gives a prominent daily platform to Reverend Al Sharpton, who perpetrated the Tawana Brawley hoax.

    Clearly there is a problem with MSNBC’s programming. This is the same network that was shamed into suspending the host of a weekly program, actor Alec Baldwin, for uttering anti-gay slurs. This is the same network that had to suspend Keith Olbermann for donating to Democrat candidates and suspended Ed Schultz for calling talk show host Laura Ingraham “a right-wing slut.”

    Since MSNBC allows Bashir to remain on the air, it reflects poorly on the entire network. The decision reveals the type of liberal hate that permeates their management and on-air staff. If a similar comment had been made on CNN or Fox, the anchor would have been immediately fired. Evidently, MSNBC has much lower standards than its competition and must have to scrape the bottom of the broadcast barrel to find enough liberal blowhards to fill their schedule.

    This episode also exposes the double standard about treatment toward conservatives, especially Sarah Palin. No one would dare make a similar comment about Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or any prominent female leftist. In contrast, renowned members of the media savage Palin on a regular basis. If she is so extreme and such a disgrace, why does she engender so much hate? Undoubtedly, liberals are scared by her conservative message and her ability to effectively communicate. As a result, they demonize her and through their hate speech figuratively “defecate” on her. It is time for this obscene mistreatment to end.

    NBC News operates MSNBC and must condone the hard left programming, but it is surprising that it allows hate speech to permeate their airwaves. Until MSNBC changes direction, let’s hope viewers and advertisers continue to abandon the network.

    It is time to elevate the political discourse in our nation. We should encourage networks to allow a variety of views on their airwaves including a spirited debate on the important issues that impact our country. However, in the process, Americans should demand that all broadcasters show basic human decency toward each other and those in political leadership, even conservatives like Sarah Palin. As of today, on these important criteria, MSNBC is failing miserably.

    Who Killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan's Answer

    Paul Kengor | Nov 23, 2013

    Editor’s note: This article first appeared at American Spectator.

    This year marks not only the 50th anniversary of the shooting of John F. Kennedy but also the 45th anniversary of the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy, which occurred in June 1968. Was there a common source motivating the assassins of both Kennedys—that is, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan?

    That renowned political philosopher Mick Jagger speculated on a source. “I shouted out ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’” asks the lyrics in the 1968 song by The Rolling Stones. “When, after all, it was you and me.” The song was titled, “Sympathy for the Devil.” It was, The Rolling Stones suggested, the Devil who had killed the Kennedys, along with his accomplices.

    I must say I can’t disagree with that one—a rare area of agreement between me and Mick Jagger.

    There is, however, a more earthly answer. And it was provided, surprisingly, by a rising political star in the immediate hours after the shooting of Bobby Kennedy. That star was the new governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

    RFK was shot in Governor Reagan’s state. Reagan was no stranger to Bobby Kennedy. He had debated him a year earlier on national television, which didn’t go well for RFK, with Reagan clearly outshining him. Kennedy told his handlers to never again put him on the same stage with “that son-of-a-b----.”

    That debate occurred five years after Bobby Kennedy had intervened to get Reagan fired from his long stint as host of the top-rated GE Theatre on CBS—a fact unknown until it was revealed by Michael Reagan in his excellent book, The New Reagan Revolution. Typical of Reagan, he harbored no bitterness toward RFK. That was quite unlike Bobby Kennedy, a man who personally knew how to hold a grudge.

    On June 5, 1968, Reagan was full of nothing but sympathy for RFK. He appeared on the popular television show of Joey Bishop, one of the extended members of Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack. Bishop and Reagan were old Hollywood friends, and Bishop extended the governor a platform to address the shooting. A transcript of Reagan’s appearance on that show was grabbed by his young chief of staff, Bill Clark, who died just a few months ago. Clark shoved it in a box that ended up in the tack barn at his ranch in central California. It lay there until I, as Clark’s biographer, dug it out three decades later.

    That rare surviving transcript reveals a Reagan who spoke movingly about RFK and the entire Kennedy family. Condemning the “savage act,” Reagan pleaded: “I am sure that all of us are praying not only for him but for his family and for those others who were so senselessly struck down also in the fusillade of bullets…. I believe we should go on praying, to the best of our ability.”

    But particularly interesting was how Reagan unflinchingly pointed a finger of blame in the direction of Moscow. Reagan noted that Kennedy’s killer, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab and also a communist, had shot Kennedy because of his support of Israel during the Six Day War that had occurred exactly one year earlier. On that, we now know beyond dispute what Reagan knew then: That war had been shamelessly provoked by the Kremlin.

    Looking to exploit divisions in the Middle East and further exacerbate America’s foreign-policy problems at the time (we were mired in Vietnam), Soviet officials cooked up false intelligence reports claiming that Israeli troops had been moved into the Golan Heights and were readying to invade Syria. They peddled the malicious, phony information to Egypt and other Arab states for the explicit purpose of creating a military confrontation with Israel. The Israeli leader, Levi Eshkol, immediately denounced the accusation, telling the Soviet ambassador to his face that there were no Israeli troops there whatsoever, and offering to personally drive him to the Golan at once. Acting on orders, the ambassador flatly refused, shouting “Nyet!” at Eshkol and storming out of the prime minister’s residence. The Egyptians, too, checked their intelligence sources and found no evidence of Israeli troops in the Golan. Nonetheless, the pieces were in motion, and one thing dangerously led to another until everything spiraled out of control. Within mere weeks, the Six Day War was on—precipitated by the Kremlin. The egregious depths of Soviet disinformation spawned a major Middle East war.

    RFK supported Israel in that war. Sirhan Sirhan never forgave him for that. He killed him for that.

    Again, Ronald Reagan knew about the Soviet role in instigating the conflict, which he apparently pieced together via various reports at the time. As a result, he linked Bobby Kennedy’s assassination to the USSR’s mischief in the Middle East. “The enemy sits in Moscow,” Reagan told Joey Bishop. “I call him an enemy because I believe he has proven this, by deed, in the Middle East. The actions of the enemy led to and precipitated the tragedy of last night.”

    Moscow had precipitated the Six Day War in June 1967, which, in turn, had prompted RFK’s assassin in June 1968.

    But Reagan wasn’t finished positioning blame where it deserved to be placed. Eight days later, on July 13, 1968, Reagan delivered a forgotten speech in Indianapolis. Both the Indianapolis News and Indianapolis Star reported on Reagan’s remarks, but the only full transcript I’ve seen was likewise located in Bill Clark’s private papers. In that speech, Reagan leveled this charge at international communism, with an earlier Kennedy assassination in mind: “Five years ago, a president was murdered by one who renounced his American citizenship to embrace the godless philosophy of communism, and it was communist violence he brought to our land. The shattering sound of his shots were still ringing in our ears when a policy decision was made to play down his communist attachment lest we provoke the Soviet Union.”

    Reagan was spot on. As many conservative writers are currently noting, liberals in the immediate moments after the JFK assassination sought to blame everything but Oswald’s love of communism, love of the Soviet Union, and love of Castro’s Cuba as motivations for what he did. Some blamed the climate of alleged “hate” and “bigotry” and “violence” in Dallas for the shooting. They ached to blame the right, fulfilling James Burnham’s timeless maxim: “For the left, the preferred enemy is always to the right.” Amazingly, they attempted to label Oswald a “right-winger,” which was utterly upside down. He was a left-winger, as far left as one could get. Oswald was a completely committed communist. He was head over heels for Castro’s Cuba in particular. He adored Fidel. After defecting to and then leaving the Soviet Union after a long stay there, he went back to Texas (with a Soviet wife) and then tried everything to get to Havana and serve the revolution there. JFK and Fidel despised one another; each wanted the other dead. Guess who Oswald sided with on that one?

    The Warren Commission later agonized over the possible motivations of Oswald. In the end, it determined that it “could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives.” To its credit, the commission “endeavored to isolate the factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy.” It listed five factors, which appear on page 23 of the huge commission report. Among the five, the fifth underscored Oswald’s “avowed commitment to Marxism and communism,” and noted specifically his ardor for Moscow and Havana. The commission concluded that this did indeed contribute to Oswald’s “capacity to risk all in cruel and irresponsible actions.”

    Nonetheless, Oswald’s passion for international communism, from Russia to the Western Hemisphere, has been downplayed by the American left and many Americans generally from the literal moment we learned that John F. Kennedy had been shot.

    One American who was never blind to that motivation was Ronald Reagan. More than that, Reagan wasn’t naïve to the role of international communism in the shooting of RFK either.

    For the record, this is not to say that Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan acted as conscious, deliberate agents trained and ordered by the Soviets or the Cubans, though some—such as Ion Mihai Pacepa—have examined that possibility in depth. Their actions, however, cannot or should not be separated from the malevolent force of international communism, which unquestionably played a role in their ultimate deadly actions.

    Who killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan told us the answer 45 years ago.

    Friday, November 22, 2013

    MSM / MSNBC

    Breaking: Not breaking. As Twitchy reported Thursday morning, Huffington Post editorial director and MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman was among the slobbering lapdogs summoned to the White House for an off-the-record audience with Obama.

    On Friday, Fineman took to Twitter to boast about his Special Snowflake status … and to tell you plebs he’s not willing to share any details on his Obamacare marching orders.

    Tuesday, November 19, 2013

    The Top 20 Signs That You Get All Your News From MSNBC

    John Hawkins | Nov 19, 2013

    1) The total extent of your knowledge about the world before 1970 is that Hitler was a lot like George W. Bush.

    2) You once lectured the plumber clearing a clog in your toilet because you thought he didn't appreciate all the benefits he had received from "white privilege."

    3) Not only do you have Sandra Fluke's autograph, you paid for it and it's hanging in your house.

    4) You once took a sign to a protest that said, "Who Needs Oil? I Ride The Bus."

    5) You are "pro-choice" on abortion, but believe religious groups should be forced to pay for your birth control.

    6) You think a Republican founded the KKK.

    7) You cried yourself to sleep one night last week because you're so upset at how mean people are to poor Alec Baldwin.

    8) You've used the words, "That's Bush's fault," in the last month.

    9) You've laughed at a rape joke about Sarah Palin within an hour of claiming Republicans are waging a "war on women."

    10) You once actually said, "If Chris Matthews says it, you can take it to the bank!"

    11) You don't believe Barack Obama has ever lied to anyone, but if he did, you're sure he did it for our own good!

    12) You don't understand why Obama still hasn't prosecuted Bush for being behind 9/11 yet.

    13) You'd be in favor of emptying the terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay so you could send Christians and Tea Partiers there instead.

    14) You believe Ed Schultz is a moderate voice of reasoned debate.

    15) You once called a conservative black man a racist for saying everyone should be treated equally.

    16) You refuse to call Washington's pro-football team "the Redskins," but refer to Tea Partiers as "Teabaggers."

    17) You supported Obamacare all the way, but were shocked to find out that your insurance wasn't free when it went into effect.

    18) You blame Republicans for all the problems with Obamacare even though it was passed entirely with Democrat votes.

    19) You hate the slanted news you get from places like Fox, which is why you prefer to get your news from unbiased commentators like Rachel Maddow and Piers Morgan.

    20) You get so angry about those darn hunters! How can they kill animals for food when they could just buy it at the grocery store like everyone else?

    Obama’s Ed Secretary: Common Core Opponents Are White Suburban Moms with Dumb Kids

    Michael Schaus | Nov 19, 2013

    Obama’s Education Secretary recently said that opponents to the Administration’s “Common Core” Standards are merely “white suburban moms” who are, all of a sudden, learning that their kids aren’t real bright. Arne Duncan (wow. . . Perfect name for a 1970’s sitcom) made the degrading remarks to a group of state school superintendents on Friday. According to the Washington Post:

    U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told a group of state schools superintendents Friday that he found it “fascinating” that some of the opposition to the Common Core State Standards has come from “white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought it was.”

    First of all, Arne, what does race have to do with anything? For that matter what does the socio-economic status of parents have to do with anything? (How would such a comment have been received if it was regarding single black mothers with less-than-brilliant kids?) Arne’s complete dismissal of opponents to the Federal Government’s takeover of education is typical of the Washington Statists who have been running things for the last several years. It’s as if he meant to say, “Opponents can’t be taken seriously. . . After all, they don’t agree with me.”

    The insinuation that parents are raising concerns over the federal education standards because they would rather their kids have their ego’s artificially inflated, is both insulting and indicative of his overwhelming sense of self-righteousness. Perhaps we should just be happy Arne didn’t employee the typical MSNBC argument that his opponents are merely redneck-racists who despise the color of our President’s skin.

    Forgetting for a minute about the horror stories regarding Common-Core-approved teaching material (promoting communism and downplaying wrong answers as two examples) there are still plenty of reasons to harbor sincere reservations about the federal intrusion on local education efforts.

    At heart of Common Core is the liberal’s statist notion that only they are capable of running our lives. Arne, and his central-planning buddies in the nation’s Capital, think parents, school boards, and classroom teachers are incapable of providing children with adequate education standards. Does this remind you of any other Obama Administration initiative? (Ahem*Obamacare*Ahem) At least Common Core doesn’t mandate free access to contraception. (Yet.)

    According to people like Arne Duncan, only the folks who brought us healthcare.gov can bring some degree of competency into our American education system. (Stop laughing. That really is what he’s suggesting.) In the real world, however, the Federal government’s incompetence has managed to raise red flags among a bipartisan swath of the American public – including the Administration’s staunchest allies. That official “white suburban mom” activist group, known as the American Federation of Teachers, even raised an eyebrow at the failure of Common Core implementation. Randi Weingarten, the head of this radical tea-party group (sarcasm) even said that if you thought Obamacare’s implementation was bad, then just wait. . . “The implementation of the Common Core is far worse.

    The primary objection to more federal government involvement in education has been a usurpation of local school board decisions, and a politically driven curriculum for education. Which only makes sense given the political nature of everything that comes out of DC. Isn’t it amazing how we are all told that DC is run by lobbyists and special interests? . . . But then we are expected to hand over something as valuable and precious as our child’s education to those very narrow minded con-artists?

    The standards themselves were the first casualty of DC politicization. They were not, despite what Duncan would like you to believe, written by teachers, school boards, or even elected representatives. They were not approved or written by the states that adopted them, or by the education professionals who will be implementing them. . . They were written (I know this will be shocking) by bureaucrats.

    But let’s not let these little concerns get in the way of calling Common Core opponents “white moms” with dumb kids. Such insults are nothing new to Duncan. According to the Washington Post, he told a convention of newspaper editors in June that Common Core critics were “misinformed at best and laboring under paranoid delusions at worst.”

    Well. . . It’s easy to start wearing tin-foil hats when Florida schools begin scanning student’s retinas and kids are being taught that private enterprise is unfair and discriminatory.

    Then again, maybe Arne is speaking from personal experience. . . His mother, after all, might be a white suburban mom who believes her son is much brighter than he actually is.

    Obama–the Unemployment Lies

    If this shocks you, you have not been paying attention

                              What is one word that we could use to accurately describe the Obama Regime?

                              Liar would be a pretty good start.

                              As it turns out, the Obama Regime lied about something fairly important and it lied for obvious reasons.

                              From the New York Post:

                              In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

                              The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

                              And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

                              Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

                              And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

                              “He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

                              The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

                              Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

                              Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews — meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.

                              Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.

                              Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.

                              “It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.

                              Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.

                              Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.

                              Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.

                              By making up survey results — and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs — Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.

                              Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.

                              But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.

                              But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.

                              In short, the Obama Regime lied about the number of unemployed.  Obama knew, as well as everyone else, that no President in the modern era has been reelected with unemployment over 8%.

                              The unemployment rate, as an economic statistic has become a joke.  Before the 1996 election, Bill Clinton had the formula changed so that the discouraged worker, those who had given up on looking for work, were no longer included.  In short, it lowered the unemployment rate so Clinton looked better.

                              If you look at the unvarnished figures, including the U-6 unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate, you realize the truth.

                              America remains mired in the Great Obama Depression and unless America changes direction, that will not change.

                              Monday, November 11, 2013

                              Pew poll shows Obama's approval hits new low on economy

                              November 11, 2013

                              WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans now disapprove of the way President Obama is handling his job, while Americans' assessment of the way he is handling the economy has hit a nadir for his nearly 5-year-old presidency, according to a new Pew Research Center poll published Friday.

                              Forty-one percent of those polled approve of how he's handling his job, while 53% disapprove. That's a 14-point drop since December, according to Pew.

                              Obama's job ratings on the economy have been underwater for more than four years, but the current measure is the worst of his presidency — 31% approve of the way Obama is handling the economy, and 65% disapprove.

                              The Pew survey, which was conducted Oct. 30-Nov. 6, found that majorities disapprove of the way the president is handling five of six issues tested. Terrorism was the lone exception, with 51% approving of his performance, and 44% disapproving. But even on terrorism, his ratings are lower than they were earlier this year, according to the poll.

                              Thursday, November 07, 2013

                              School bus driver & Christian preacher fired for leading students in prayer

                              A pastor from Minnesota moonlighting as a school bus driver is crying foul after he says he was fired from his day job for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus.

                              George Nathaniel III, 49, of Richfield, who is a cleric at two Minneapolis churches, was in his second year as a school bus driver for Durham School Services, which is under contract to the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage district.

                              Wednesday, November 06, 2013

                              Liberal Lie of the Day

                              There was nothing about what President Obama or that I or any other Democrat supporting the Affordable Care Act said that was not true.

                              - National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz

                              Friday, November 01, 2013

                              China is spying on you through your KETTLE: Bugs that scan wi-fi devices found in imported kitchen gadgets

                              From Laura Ingraham’s website:

                              Russian investigators claim to have found household appliances imported from China which contain hidden microchips that pump spam data and malware into wi-fi networks.

                              Authorities in St Petersburg allegedly discovered 20 to 30 kettles and irons with 'spy microchips that send some data to the foreign server', according to Russian media.

                              The revelation comes just as the EU launches an investigation into claims that Russia itself bugged gifts to delegates at last month's G20 summit in an attempt to retrieve data from computers and telephones.

                              God Bless the Conservative Warriors

                              David Limbaugh | Nov 01, 2013

                              I just don't understand it. Everywhere we turn, we conservatives are told we need to moderate, be less extreme, be more bipartisan. The public just wants us all to get along and solve our major problems together.

                              Democratic politicians and the liberal media harp on the alleged extremism of mainstream conservatism, the tea party, Sen. Ted Cruz, conservative talk radio and anyone else who dares to call out President Obama and his Democratic congressional cohorts in plain language for what they're doing to the country.

                              Nonsense. No one with a modicum of political power is more extreme than Obama's Democrats are, yet they pretend they're moderates who only want to work with Republicans for constructive bipartisan solutions.

                              President Obama, in his umpty-jillionth health care speech, told us Wednesday he is eager to work with Republicans: "Both parties working together to get the job done -- that's what we need in Washington right now."

                              Sure, we'll just ignore his admission that he wants to fundamentally change America and his five-year record of leftist extremism in doing just that. We'll overlook his brazen refusal even to come to the table to negotiate.

                              Yet Republican establishment politicians and center-right Beltway pundits pile on, constantly lecturing those of us to their right -- those more eager to fight than surrender -- to calm down, be more pragmatic and focus on the next election, when we can really show them. We must get ahold of ourselves and temper our passions. For if we stand up to this bully in the White House and give him some of his own medicine, if we fight for our principles to the point that the government shuts down, independents will turn away from us in droves, and we'll never win any more elections.

                              Does it ever occur to them that President Obama and his band of enabling Democrats set the standard for modern extremism in American politics and that they never tone down their positions? Do they ever wonder why the sainted independents don't leave Democrats in droves for standing up for their own principles -- as manifestly destructive as they are? Why do moderation and bipartisanship only apply to Republicans and Democrats get a free pass?

                              Republican Party insiders, strategists, operatives and head honchos seem particularly afflicted with the appeasement bug and are embarrassed by grass-roots conservatives, the tea party and intractable politicians such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, who refuse to blissfully join them in celebrating the glories of inaction and conciliation.

                              National Journal's Ron Fournier writes: "A GOP operative who also requested anonymity said that Wednesday's hearing on Obamacare highlighted what's wrong with his party. 'We looked like we were beating (up) the HHS secretary,' he said of Kathleen Sebelius. 'Why do we have to always overdo it?'"

                              Overdo it? Shame on you, Mr. Anonymity!

                              The reason we have to go after administration officials such as Sebelius is that they are destroying the world's best health care system, ramping up the national debt, assaulting our liberties and brazenly lying to our faces about what they're doing. Don't you think, Mr. Measured, that it's time we pointed out to the public exactly what these people are doing? Or should we just pretend that it's politics as usual and that the administration has nothing but the best intentions in mind for Americans and just favors slightly different policies to get us there?

                              I'm sorry, but we don't share goals with these people, which Obama, in a rare moment of candor, admitted in his speech. They don't have the best intentions in mind for America or Americans -- at least not as I define best intentions. If the Republican Party apparatus won't allow us to fight them aggressively now, some might say it's time to find a new vehicle that will accommodate our commitment to conservatism. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to relinquish control of the GOP to those whose excessive time on the inside has clouded their perception as to what's acceptable.

                              Instead of using their energy to haughtily reprimand and undermine conservatives, why don't moderates turn their sights on Obama and his Democratic Party, whose goals they assure us they reject?

                              If people didn't recognize Obama's extremism before, they no longer have any excuse as we witness his deceit and intransigence on Obamacare, lying about every aspect of it and telling us to ridicule our lying eyes, which are observing the unprecedented chaos and destruction his socialized medicine scheme has wrought.

                              It's past time to put away the silly talk about working with a man who has no intention of working with anyone who retains any respect for the American system as we know it. To candy-coat Obama's mendacity and destruction is to enable him -- and disable America. Indeed, this mindless talk of bipartisanship and moderation serves as perfect cover for the true extremists -- the people who are permanently transforming the United States of America.

                              Isn't five years enough to convince all of us we must quit playing patsy with these statists and join together to oppose them with as much fervor as we can muster?

                              Godspeed to those with the clarity of vision to see what is happening and the courage to oppose it.

                              The President Who Wasn’t There

                              Derek Hunter | Oct 31, 2013

                              President Obama loves to golf. President Obama loves to campaign. President Obama loves to hobnob with celebrities. In fact, President Obama loves all the trappings of the presidency except, it would seem, actually doing the job of being President.
                              As President, Barack Obama is every bit the bomb-thrower you’d expect from a progressive activist community organizer – all sizzle, no steak. He can campaign like a champion, present old, failed ideas as though they’d never been uttered before, and tell a lie with a straight face as well as anyone if Hollywood. But what he’s no good at is managing or paying attention, both kind of important traits for a president.
                              Presidents don’t need to micro-manage, nor should they. But they must care about the happenings on their watch, appoint the best, most trustworthy people they can, and set the tone and direction for their administration. Nothing about how President Obama has conducted himself while in office demonstrates he cares about any of these things.
                              The media has spun the Obama Presidency as the harmonic convergence between genius and innovation, yet not one aspect of it has been either. As a leader, the President of the United States has been an absentee landlord.

                              On Obamacare, routinely referred to his “signature legislation,” the President has been hopelessly disconnected, appearing disinterested, and negligent as a leader.
                              The launch of Obamacare was a disaster by any unit of measure. But the news that the President only found out about problems after the launch is the most troubling part. Think what you will about the law itself, that the man steering trillions of our tax dollars and wresting control of 1/6th of the economy wouldn’t bother to ask how things were going in the run up to launch shows a lack of seriousness and interest in his job.
                              But this lack of seriousness and disconnect from the job of being President is hardly being displayed for the first time this October. It’s the latest in a pattern of either disinterest in the duties of his office, a bit if willful ignorance for plausible deniability or simply a lie.
                              The President told CNN he’d found out about Fast and Furious, the gun running debacle his Justice Department created, from reports in the media. He claimed to have found out about the Internal Revenue Service targeting his political opponents through the media as well.
                              What else doesn’t the President know, and why doesn’t his staff want him to know it?
                              The President’s Chief of Staff knew about the IRS scandal before it was made public, as did the White House Council (essentially the President’s lawyer). We’re expected to believe neither thought to tell him? That’s what we’ve been told, so if it’s true they should’ve been fired immediately. If it’s not, we’ve been lied to for political cover. Neither option is acceptable.
                              That no one in the Justice Department, especially the Attorney General, would inform the President that they’d forced gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, never tracked them and they’ve been turning up at murder scenes across the southwest and Mexico, including at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, is an outrage. For the President to casually mention that he’d found out about it from the media is disgusting. And for no one to be fired for keeping such important and embarrassing information from him is inexcusable. Unless the official story isn’t true.
                              You fire incompetence. You can’t fire people doing what they’re told.
                              Actually, this administration doesn’t fire incompetence either.
                              National Journal’s Matthew Cooper wrote a piece entitled, “Why Obama Won’t Fire (Kathleen) Sebelius” about the failed Secretary of Health and Human Services who is overseeing the slow-motion train wreck of the Obamacare roll-out. He writes that Sebelius’s safety in her position can be attributed to things unrelated to her job performance. “Chalk part of it up to the hands-off approach Obama takes when it comes to his Cabinet and a self-preserving one favored by Sebelius's. Throw in a mutual affection that's just strong enough to keep them bound together, mix in their shared love of basketball, and it's a formula for survival.”
                              In other words, the President doesn’t care if someone is good at their job, he cares that he likes to be around them. The White House has become a clubhouse.
                              It’s not as though Sebelius was new to the job or thrust into an untenable situation, she oversaw the writing of the bill and has a free hand in writing the regulations for the law. This is as much her baby as it is the President’s. But he likes having her around, so millions of people losing their insurance and hundreds of millions wasted on a failed website later, they can talk hoops and it’s all good.
                              The President of the United States is not a symbolic position like the Queen of England, it’s not a tourist attraction. At least it didn’t used to be that way. Barack Obama travels the country giving pep-rally style speeches, attends fundraisers and golfs. He wholeheartedly embraces the trappings available to the Office of the President. What he doesn’t do is his job. Or this is him doing it and doing it the best he can, which is even worse.

                              Obama is the One Selling Scam Insurance Policies

                              Conn Carroll | Oct 31, 2013

                               

                              Repeatedly, both before and after passage, President Obama promised the American people, "If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period."

                              But, now that millions of Americans are receiving letters from their insurance companies informing them that their current health care plans are being cancelled thanks to Obamacare, every honest journalist who has looked at the matter has admitted that Obama lied.

                              But, instead of admitting he lied, and apologizing, Obama doubled-down on his deceit yesterday, accusing his critics of being "grossly misleading" about Obamacare:

                              So anyone peddling the notion that insurers are cancelling people’s plan without mentioning that almost all the insurers are encouraging people to join better plans with the same carrier, and stronger benefits and stronger protections, while others will be able to get better plans with new carriers through the marketplace, and that many will get new help to pay for these better plans and make them actually cheaper -- if you leave that stuff out, you’re being grossly misleading, to say the least.

                              But is that true? Are the new plans on the exchange really that much better than the plans currently sold by insurance companies?

                              Not if you want to receive care at the nation's top hospitals they aren't. U.S. Newsreports:

                              Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare.
                              ...
                              Regulations driven by the Obama White House have indeed made insurance more affordable – if, like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, you're looking only at price. But responding to Obamacare caps on premiums, many insurers will, in turn, simply offer top-tier doctors and hospitals far less cash for services rendered.
                              Watchdog.org looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014. We contacted each hospital to determine their contracts and talked to several insurance companies, as well.
                              The result of our investigation: Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.
                              Chances are the individual plan you purchased outside Obamacare would allow you to go to these facilities. For example, fourth-ranked Cleveland Clinic accepts dozens of insurance plans if you buy one on your own. But go through Obamacare and you have just one choice: Medical Mutual of Ohio.

                              You can read the full U.S. News report here, as well as previous reporting on how Obamacare limits patient choices here.

                              Goodbye New York, Hello South Carolina: Third Gun Company Leaves Over Cuomo’s SAFE Act

                              When New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the SAFE Act in January—what he referred to as “common sense” gun-control legislation—the law not only turned many law-abiding citizens into criminals, it also drove businesses and jobs out of the state.

                              With a move to South Carolina, American Tactical Imports has become the third firearm company to relocate its operations from New York to more gun-friendly states. According to Guns.com:

                              ATI is largely an importer and distributor of domestic firearms, although they do some manufacturing. They plan to move from Rochester to Summerville, a city on the outskirts of Charleston, starting next month.

                              They are bringing 117 jobs to Dorchester County between their headquarters, assembly, customer service and sales teams. The company said it will be investing $2.7 million in jobs and facilities.

                              While the company’s primary decision to relocate is to operate in a state with strong support of the Second Amendment, the move offers some logistical benefits to ATI as well. As an importer this brings the company closer to the shipping lanes it relies on for product deliveries. The Charleston area is home to some of the largest and busiest ports on the Atlantic seaboard.

                              “[The] announcement is another testament that South Carolina is a destination for job-creating investments,” Gov. Nikki Haley said.

                              Tuesday, October 29, 2013

                              Obamacare: The White House Lied

                              Conservative commentator Marc Thiessen accused President Obama of a “bold-faced lie” Monday after Fox News confirmed the White House knew as early as 2010 that over 10 million people would lose their current doctor under ObamaCare.

                              Megyn Kelly reported Monday on “The Kelly File” that an IRS regulation pushed by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 estimated that millions would be unable to keep their health insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act.

                              10/29/13 5:23 AM

                              Tuesday, October 22, 2013

                              We can thank Barack Obama.

                              Posted by Judson Phillips on October 22, 2013 at 7:18am in Tea Party Nation Forum

                              Thank Barack Obama?

                              Are we nuts?

                              There is one rule we should all live by.  Never complain about incompetent opposition.  They could get better.

                              Barack Obama has done something that we should be grateful for.

                              What is it?

                              Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are the only Democrats to win reelection in the last sixty years.  There are some comparisons between the two.  Perhaps we should be grateful that Bill Clinton is not in the White House because Amnesty would be a done deal if he were.

                              One of the major differences between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton loved the political process.  He would get in there, back slap, shake hands, cut deals and do what was necessary to push his programs through.

                              Obama is the world’s greatest narcissist.  He believes he is above all of that.  He proved that when he was first elected and the Republicans wanted compromise.  His response was, “I won.”

                              In the recent debt-ceiling showdown, Obama refused to compromise.  He knew the Republicans would cave and eventually they did.

                              But there were consequences to that.

                              Obama desperately wants Amnesty to pass.  He knows that if it does pass, the Democrats will control American government in perpetuity, much as the Democrats control Chicago.  He knows that if Amnesty is passed, it will forever change America from the land of liberty to just another mediocre nation saddled with the yoke of socialism.

                              Unfortunately for Obama, he needs the Republicans to pass Amnesty.   Many of the crony capitalist Republicans don’t care that Obama basically spit in their faces on the debt ceiling deal. They want to work with him on Amnesty.

                              Why any Republican would support Amnesty right now is a mystery.  It is suicide for the nation and suicide for the Republican Party.

                              But Obama’s narcissism has caught up with him.

                              At least one important Republican in the House of Representatives is now saying no to Amnesty.

                              Texas Congressman Ted Poe, who is the Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is now saying he will not go along with any deal on immigration.

                              Why?

                              He cites Obama’s winner take all strategy.

                              Poe points out that Obama has a simply philosophy.  Those who disagree with him must surrender.  In Obama’s world, compromise is what the other side does.  Barack Obama does not compromise.  That is beneath him.

                              Poe isn’t the only one.  Just a few days ago, Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador came out and said the obvious.  He said that Obama wanted to use Amnesty to destroy the Republican Party.

                              Republicans in the House of Representatives seem to be finally seeing the light.  Amnesty is a bad idea on general principles but with Barack Obama in the White House, it is a disaster.

                              As with everything else Obama does, it is not about policy or fairness.  The goal is always political.

                              Obama wants Amnesty because he knows it will destroy the Republican Party.  The fact that people like House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor either don’t get it or purposefully ignore that is just another reason why they must go.

                              America is stuck with Barack Obama for another three years.  There is nothing we can do about that.   We are not stuck with John Boehner and Eric Cantor for another three.

                              Let’s not complain about incompetent leadership on the other side.  They could get better.  Meanwhile, let’s work on getting competent leadership on the conservative side.

                              When they get better, America wins!

                              Wednesday, October 16, 2013

                              Longing to be a Victim

                              John Stossel | Oct 16, 2013

                              These days, being seen as a victim can be useful. You immediately claim the moral high ground. Some people want to help you. Lawyers and politicians brag that they force others to help you.

                              This turns some people into whiners with little sense of responsibility.

                              Joe Biden's niece was arrested recently for throwing a punch at a cop. The New York Post says she's addicted to alcohol and pills, but rather than take responsibility for her actions, she blamed them on the "pressure she faces" because her uncle is vice president.

                              Give me a break. America was founded by people who were the opposite of victims, by people with grit. Overcoming obstacles is the route to prosperity -- and happiness, too.

                              I had to overcome stuttering to work as a TV reporter. Had today's disability laws existed when I began work, would I have overcome my stuttering problem? Maybe not. I might have demanded my employer "accommodate" my disability by providing me a job that didn't demand being on-air.

                              Now that the laws exist, it's no coincidence that more Americans say they are disabled.

                              Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute writes that this is part of a disability-industrial complex : collusion between specialty law firms, doctors vouching for applicants with dubious claims and federal administrative law judges awarding benefits.

                              It changes the way people calculate their options.

                              Despite improved medical care and the workforce's dramatic shift from physical to mental labor, the number of Americans claiming disability keeps growing. You start to feel like a sucker if you're not one of them.

                              On my TV show, DeHaven said today even poor parents "try to get their kids on psychotropic medications in hopes of qualifying for a check that goes to Dad and Mom."

                              Since the 80s, there has been a 300 percent increase in disability claims for hard-to-prove illnesses like back pain, stress and other "non-exertional restrictions." Over the past two decades, the number of people receiving Social Security disability benefits grew from 4 million to 11 million.

                              "It's like any other government program," says DeHaven. "You start off with good intentions and then it becomes something that it was never supposed to be."

                              We all want to help the genuinely disabled, but a wide range of subjective ailments are affected by attitude. Labeling people victims, telling them they need help, teaches some to think like victims. Social scientists call that "learned helplessness."

                              Private charities are pretty good at separating real victims from malingerers. But government is not. Its one-size-fits-all rules encourage people to act like victims.

                              Whether people have real physical ailments or just see the economic deck stacked against them, the most damaging thing say to them is: Give up. You can't make it on your own. Wait for help.

                              Pessimism changes what we think is possible. It shrinks our horizons.

                              We in the media keep an eye out for people who are victimized. Sometimes that's a valuable service. But it often means looking for victims when they really aren't there. This makes reporters feel like heroes -- noble sentries protecting the powerless.

                              Even the newly crowned Miss America, Nina Davuluri, who sure seems like a winner by conventional standards, was portrayed as a victim in many news stories. Since she's the first Miss America of Indian descent, some trolls on Twitter made racist remarks.

                              But skeptical writer Gavin McInnes did a little digging. He found those racist Twitter users were almost certainly just irresponsible little kids. One of the media's most quoted tweets, "You look like a terrorist," was sent by a Twitter user with zerofollowers.

                              If millions of people are familiar with that remark now -- and some Americans grow up a little bit more frightened that they will be victimized -- it will be largely because media hyped racism rather than because of the handful of racists themselves.

                              America is full of success stories. But if we obsess over stories about victimhood, that is what we'll get.

                              Monday, October 14, 2013

                              OUTRAGEOUS Inmates Being Paid During Shutdown But Federal Prison Guards Aren't?!

                              Guards at federal prisons are not being paid during the government shutdown, but still have to show up to work, while inmates continue to receive checks for the work they do at the facility.


                              Exclusive: US Army Defines Christian Ministry as 'Domestic Hate Group'

                              Several dozen U.S. Army active duty and reserve troops were told last week that the American Family Association, a well-respected Christian ministry, should be classified as a domestic hate group because the group advocates for traditional family values.

                              The briefing was held at Camp Shelby in Mississippi and listed the AFA alongside domestic hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.

                              A soldier who attended the briefing contacted me and sent me a photograph of a slide show presentation that listed AFA as a domestic hate group. Under the AFA headline is a photograph of Westboro Baptist Church preacher Fred Phelps holding a sign reading “No special law for f***.”

                              American Family Association has absolutely no affiliation with the controversial church group known for picketing the funerals of American service members.

                              “I had to show Americans what our soldiers are now being taught,” said the soldier who asked not to be identified. “I couldn’t just let this one pass.”

                              The soldier said a chaplain interrupted the briefing and challenged the instructor’s assertion that AFA is a hate group.

                              “The instructor said AFA could be considered a hate group because they don’t like gays,” the soldier told me. “The slide was talking about how AFA refers to gays as sinners and heathens and derogatory terms.”

                              The soldier, who is an evangelical Christian, said the chaplain defended the Christian ministry.

                              “He kept asking the instructor, ‘Are you sure about that, son? Are you sure about that?’” he said, recalling the back and forth.

                              Later in the briefing, the soldiers were reportedly told that they could face punishment for participating in organizations that are considered hate groups.

                              That considered, the soldier contacted me because he is a financial contributor to the AFA ministry.

                              “I donate to AFA as often as I can,” he said. “Am I going to be punished? I listen to American Family Radio all day. If they hear it on my radio, will I be faced with a Uniformed Code of Military Justice charge?”

                              The soldier said he was “completely taken back by this blatant attack not only on the AFA but Christians and our beliefs.”

                              It’s not the first time the Army has accused conservative Christian groups of being domestic hate groups.

                              Earlier this year, I exposed Army briefings that classified evangelical Christians and Catholics as examples of religious extremism.

                              Another briefing told officers to pay close attention to troops who supported groups like AFA and the Family Research Council.

                              One officer said the two Christian ministries did not “share our Army Values.”

                              “When we see behaviors that are inconsistent with Army Values – don’t just walk by – do the right thing and address the concern before it becomes a problem,” the officer wrote in an email to his subordinates.

                              At the time the military assured me those briefings were isolated incidents and did not reflect official Army policy.

                              If that’s true, how do they explain what happened at Camp Shelby?

                              I contacted the Pentagon for an answer but they referred me to Army public affairs. And so far – they haven’t returned my calls.

                              And their claim that the classifications are “isolated” is not washing with AFA.

                              “The American Family Association has received numerous accounts of military installations as well as law enforcement agencies using a list compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which wrongfully identifies and defames AFA,” reads a statement they sent me.

                              Bryan Fischer hosts a talk show on American Family Radio. He called the Army’s allegations “libelous, slanderous and blatantly false.”

                              “This mischaracterization of AFA is reprehensible and inexcusable,” he told me. “We have many military members who are a part of the AFA network who know these accusations are a tissue of lies.”

                              Fischer said their views on gay marriage and homosexuality are not hate – it’s simply a disagreement.

                              “If our military wasn’t headed by a commander-in-chief who is hostile to Christian faith, these allegations would be laughed off every military base in the world,” he said.

                              Hiram Sasser, of the Liberty Institute, told me the Army’s briefing is a smear.

                              He recalled what President Obama said last year when Muslim extremists attacked our diplomatic outpost in Libya.

                              “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths,” President Obama said. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

                              Sasser said he wished the president and the Army would treat the American Family Association with the same deference and respect they show those who mean to harm us.

                              “Why must the Army under this administration continue to attack Americans of faith and smear them?” Sasser wondered.

                              I fear the answer to that question.

                              Because it appears the Obama administration is separating the military from the American people – and planting seeds of doubt about Christians and some of our nation’s most prominent Christian ministries.

                              Saturday, October 12, 2013

                              An open letter to the Tea Party and Conservatives

                              Posted by Judson Phillips on October 12, 2013 at 7:18am in Tea Party Nation Forum

                              To the Tea Party and the Conservative movement:

                              As the sun rises over Washington DC today, in the brisk Autumn breeze, the Republican Party’s freshly laundered white flag of surrender flies again.

                              The Republican leadership, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and many of the other usual suspects are busy working out a deal which amounts to little more than the unconditional surrender of the Republican Party to Barack Obama.

                              While the GOP was allegedly fighting this shutdown over a year delay in the implementation of Obamacare, they will not get that in the final deal.  In fact, the GOP will get nothing.  Obamacare will be fully funded.  The Debt Ceiling will be raised.  Spending will increase.  It will be business is usual in Washington.

                              While the GOP leadership is unwilling to fight Barack Obama and the Democrats, fighting conservatives is another matter.

                              Two of the Kings of the RINO Establishment, former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu and former Mississippi Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barbour are attacking the Tea Party.  The RINOs are even recruiting candidates to run against Tea Party Congressmen such as Steve King in Iowa and Justin Amash in Michigan.  These candidates are so-called “pro-business” candidates.  They should be called, “pro-big business” candidates, as they are simply supporters of the crony capitalism that infects DC.

                              Sununu and Barbour are two of the Republican geniuses that thought President McCain and President Romney were good ideas.  Under their leadership, the GOP was slaughtered in 2006 and 2008.  By 2008, the GOP was on the political endangered species list and was only saved in 2010 by the Tea Party.

                              If the RINO establishment is more interested in fighting conservatives than fighting Barack Obama and the Democrats, so be it. 

                              Ted Cruz has more stab wounds in the back from the likes of Mitch McConnell, John McCain and Lindsay Graham than Julius Caesar had on the floor of the Roman Senate when he was assassinated.

                              If the Republican Establishment wants to play a scorched earth game with conservatives, bring it on.  To paraphrase the classic line from “Star Wars,” “You have failed us for the last time.”

                              If the Republican Party will not support conservative principles and will not support conservative candidates, it is time for the Tea Party and the conservative movement to create our own political identity and if necessary our own political party.

                              There are still good conservatives out there running as Republicans and we should support them as conservatives, not as Republicans.

                              In Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, E.W. Jackson and Mark Obenshain are all running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General respectively.  They deserve the support of conservatives.  In New Jersey, Steve Lonegan who is running for the Senate seat, who is being supported by our good friends over at the Conservative Campaign, deserves the support of conservatives.   

                              But for much of the nation, it is a different story.  In South Carolina and Tennessee, conservatives are challenging RINOs Lindsay Graham and Lamar Alexander.  If the challengers win, they deserve our support.  If Graham and Alexander survive their primaries, conservatives should either vote third party or stay home.

                              The Republican establishment shrieks, that means a Democrat will win.  That is the problem the Republican Party has had over the last twenty years.  Their unique selling point has been we are the lesser of two evils.  Well, they are half right and the point they are right about is not their size.

                              RINOs like Lindsay Graham, Lamar Alexander, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John McCain all like to talk about how conservative they are. 

                              They are not conservatives.  They are the co-dependent enablers of the welfare state. In fact, let me be politically correct for once and call them by name, undocumented Democrats.

                              It is time for the Tea Party and the Conservative movement to move away from the GOP.  It is not a conservative party. 

                              In 2009, those of us who helped organize the Tea Party movement all had the same opinion that forming the Tea Party as a new political party was not what we wanted to do.  In hindsight, that may have been a mistake.

                              But as with many mistakes, they cannot be undone but they can be corrected.

                              It is an open secret in Washington that the Republican Establishment despises its base. 

                              It’s time to see how well the GOP functions without a base.

                              Tragic: Young Mother Forced to Choose Between Obamacare Premiums and Feeding Family

                              Guy Benson | Oct 11, 2013

                              The Obama administration will rely onemotional anecdotes and incomplete data to help defend their signature law -- once its websites are fixed and people can actually enroll, that is. Critics will counter with reams of statistics proving that Obamacare violates its core promises. While empirical evidence is indispensable, it's also critical to showcase real people who are being actively harmed by the law. Meet this young, disabled motherfrom Allentown, Pennsylvania:

                              Heartbreaking. Obamacare will force this woman, her husband and their five-year-old son to choose between obtaining coverage and putting food on the table. The law's "affordable" premiums will hike the family's bills by hundreds of dollars compared to their current plan. They can't afford the change, so a desperate decision awaits. This is why so many Americans have forcefully opposed Obamacare for so long. It's not about "hating" the president. It's not about racial animus. It's not about protecting the rich. It has nothing to do with any of the red herrings proponents toss out to sully and impugn opponents' motives. The truth is that this law hurts people, breaks virtually all of the major promises upon which it was sold, and is simply unaffordable to a federal government that's already facing a long-term debt crisis. HHS Secretary Sebelius, who told Americans this week that Obamacare's exchanges are "simple and user-friendly," was confronted with a potent dose of reality in Pittsburgh yesterday; the administration is now reportedly considering dismantling andrebuilding elements of the foundering online portals. These failures are so glaring that the media can't even try to gloss over them. CBS News ripped the Obamacare launch as "nothing short of disastrous" earlier in the week, and now NBC News is piling on:

                              “If it weren’t for the shutdown dominating the news, we admittedly would be hearing and covering a lot more about how things are going for these new health care exchanges, which were rolled out ten days ago,” Williams said. “Millions of uninsured Americans are being encouraged to go to healthcare.gov to sign up for coverage but it’s been a very rocky start.” ... “By most accounts the website has been a complete mess, locking up, crashing and kicking off potential customers,” Costello said. “Of the 260 people who tried to sign up at this Miami clinic in the first week, only a single person got through.One, from 260 attempts,” applications counselor Cristina Marrero said, laughing.

                              I'll leave you with a tip of the cap to Mary Katharine Ham. Check out herdetailed prediction from November 2012: "This is a giant tech undertaking which will need to serve many localities with different needs, link existing technologies and personnel with a new, giant federal hub, and somehow make sure all of them work together to smoothly to guide consumers who have no idea what to expect in subsidies or services through a brand new web portal for health insurance. They have less than a year to accomplish this. It seems there has been no pilot program, no training, and no beta testing. This thing is ORCA on steroids." So right it hurts.

                              Millions are Losing Their Health Insurance

                              John C. Goodman | Oct 12, 2013

                              "If you like your health insurance you can keep it," Barack Obama promised the voters on many occasions.

                              About 20,000 part-time employees of Home Depot recently found out how false that promise is. The company announced that it is ending its health insurance coverage for its employees and sending them to the new health insurance exchanges.

                              They will be joined by employees of McDonald's, Disney, CVS Caremark, Staples, Blockbuster, and many others.

                              A lot of these employers have mini med plans with limited coverage. McDonald's, for example, has a plan that limits health insurance benefit to $2,000 but gives employees the option to pay a higher premium and get $3,000 or $4,000 of coverage. At Home Depot, the coverage reaches $5,000. The state of Tennessee, under TennCare, used mini med plans with a $25,000 annual cap on benefits.

                              Mini med plans typically have no deductible. They usually charge a modest copayment for physician visits and drugs. But if a McDonald's employee goes into a hospital, the co-insurance rate is 30% and the plan's benefit cap will probably be blown right through after the first 30 minutes of admission.

                              These plans are being abolished under ObamaCare and if the employees end up in one of the new health insurance exchanges they will get subsidized insurance that will look very different. For one thing, the premium the employee pays will double and for many it will more than double. Then they will face, say, a $1,500 deductible for individual coverage. Surprisingly, if the employee goes into a hospital he faces a 20% copayment (comparable to the mini med plans!), but the total out of pocket exposure is limited to $2,250.

                              Now, which of these plans is better? For the orthodox health policy community, this isn't even a serious question. That's because they live in neighborhoods and associate with people who would never even consider buying mini med coverage. And, remember, imposing one's worldview on others is 90% of what liberalism is all about.

                              But would you be surprised to learn that there are many people who would find the mini med plan more attractive?

                              Let's begin by asking why anyone wants insurance. In every other field, the answer is obvious. Insurance protects assets. Life insurance protects the value of human capital. Fire and casualty insurance protects homes, cars and other structures. People are willing to pay a premium to transfer the risk of a financial catastrophe to others. The same should be true in health care as well. Health insurance is a way of protecting one's financial resources against the expense of a catastrophic illness.

                              But if you don't own a house, you have no need for homeowners insurance. If you don't own a car, you have no need for auto casualty insurance. Similarly, if you have no assets at all (other than your human capital) why would you want health insurance?

                              For low and moderate income households, the reason why mini med plans are attractive seems to be this: People living paycheck to paycheck have trouble maintaining a reserve for unexpected medical expenses. So as an alternative to personal savings and higher wages, they appear to be willing to take less in take home pay in return for a modest amount of health insurance.

                              Okay, all that is rational. But what would be irrational is to buy a health insurance plan with an unlimited benefit ? one that, say, is able to pay a $1 million medical bill. Why would you buy a million dollars' worth of coverage, if you don't have a million dollars of assets to protect?

                              In the modern era, a perverse idea seems to have dominated the health policy community. The idea is that the purpose of health insurance is not to protect assets. It is to provide access to health care.

                              That might make some sense if it were really true. But the fact is that we have made it extremely easy in this country to obtain health insurance after you get sick. More than 90% of all the people with health insurance are in a plan that cannot deny them admission because of a health condition. For the elderly and the poor, it's 100%. In saying what I am about to say, let me preface by saying that I am aware that there are many very, very bad studies claiming that health insurance saves lives, improves health, etc. But when serious scholars have looked at this question, the reasons to think that health insurance affects mortality or health status are few. If health insurance affects health at all, the effect is marginal.

                              So, back to the original question. If you are making say, $15, $20 or $25 an hour, the ObamaCare plan is unlikely to look very attractive. Yes, it provides catastrophic insurance, which the mini med plan does not. But if you have a catastrophic medical event without ObamaCare insurance, odds are that you will be able to rely on the social safety net ? uncompensated care or even Medicaid. And if that doesn't work, odds are that you or a member of your family will be able to sign up for an employer plan that pays full expenses.

                              People with modest incomes are going to need help from others if they have a catastrophic medical event. What's the best way of getting help? Is it by obtaining subsidized health insurance with high deductibles and high out-of-pocket payments? Or is it through obtaining help to pay medical bills after the event occurs?

                              Ironically, the very people that ObamaCare is designed to help may be the ones most hurt by its enactment.

                              But I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. So let's entertain a market test. Instead of abolishing mini med plans, let people choose between those plans and ObamaCare's mandated benefits. Let's give people what they want.