[http://image.our365-mail.com/lib/fe691570766601797412/m/1/WebNurseryShareMom_btn_meetbaby.gif]<http://click.our365-mail.com/?qs=6a1fe238c898de2e438b6aa8aa562185575f3df50ba720bc1b6ba579b2c2c6412d23c24db1ccd4c98e203f64e5189676>
HERE'S YOUR VISITOR PASSWORD: 027801384866804
The Heritage Foundation and 'Obamascare.' (See 1 below.)
---
"I was at a cash point yesterday when a little old lady asked if I could check her balance, so I pushed her over. "
The message is: 'Don't amend 'Obamascare,' kill the sucker, stomp on its heart!" (See 5 below.)
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The memo identifies the White House's target audience -- seniors, women, and young adults -- with a goal of "increasing] overall public support for the law by making the benefits of the law (and consequences of taking those benefits away) tangible by featuring stories of real people impacted." The effort will focus on two key issues:
"Remind people that the law is already benefiting millions of Americans by providing health care coverage, reducing costs and providing access to healthcare coverage. This message will include the ideas that these are benefits that politicians the Court are (sic) are trying to take away from average Americans."
"Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned. While lawyers will be talking about the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precedence, organizations on the ground should continue to focus on these more tangible results of the law."
The White House and its allies have a lot of persuading to do. The American people have come to their own conclusion about Obamacare -- the law was a serious mistake, and it's time for it to go.
Polling data shows the extent of the opposition. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor repeal, more than half of Americans say that the Supreme Court should strike down the mandate, 57 percent believe religious-affiliated employers should be exempt from the law's anti-conscience mandate, 51 percent support a religious and moral exemption for all employers, and 60 percent of physicians believe the law will have a negative impact on overall patient care.
There's good reason for their opposition. The latest news of Obamacare's impact came from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released this week. In one of the CBO's reported scenarios, 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits, and 49 million more Americans could become dependent on government-sponsored health care. And it won't come cheaply for American taxpayers. Projecting through 2022, Obamacare could cost as much as $2.134 trillion, and individual and employer mandate penalties could hit $221 billion.
Then there's the issue of the unconstitutional individual mandate that forces Americans to buy government dictated health insurance or pay a penalty, as well as the anti-conscience mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, must provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraception despite the fact that such services totally contradict many of these groups' core religious beliefs.
Under Obamacare, costs will go up, people will lose the coverage they have, and quality of care will decline. Individuals and businesses will face penalties, seniors will feel the effects of Obamacare's cuts to Medicare, doctors will suffer from increased regulation and lower government reimbursement for services, taxpayers will face new taxes, jobs will be lost, millions of Americans will remain uninsured and stuck in overcrowded emergency rooms, religious institutions and the faithful will suffer the loss of their religious liberties, and future generations will pay the costs.
That's not the message you'll see and hear next week as the White House and its supporters descend on Washington and take to the airwaves in defense of Obamacare. But as much as they'd like to portray their efforts as a grassroots groundswell in defense of the President's law, we know that it's a highly coordinated effort to preserve an unconstitutional affront to the American people.
| The Big Energy Lie You're Hearing from Politicians |
| By Matt Badiali, editor, S&A Resource Report |
According to Gingrich, if we drill and produce more oil at home… we'll pay less at the gas pump. He's wrong.
I'm excited about our domestic oil production. And I do believe it will grow – dramatically. But if you believe a politician when he says more production at home will lower oil prices… you're buying a line.
Energy consumers are going to continue to pay high prices. But energy investors are better off. Here's why…
As Gingrich correctly points out, the shale oil revolution has allowed U.S. oil production to rise for the first time in over 18 years.
He's also correct that the estimate for recoverable oil from the Bakken shale in North Dakota rose 2,500% since the first estimate in 1995.
In 2003, Bakken shale oil production made up just 1% of U.S. oil production. By 2010, oil from the Bakken made up 6% of U.S. oil producton.
That's huge… and it foreshadows even more gains. But it won't be enough to make a difference in the price of oil.
According to analysts at Hart Energy, an oil industry observer, oil production from the Eagle Ford shale and the Permian Basin formation in Texas will be nearly as important as the Bakken.
The study showed that unconventional oil from those three shales could add 730 million barrels of oil per year in seven years… a 37% increase over 2010.
Gingrich says the oil price is a supply-and-demand problem. According to his logic, the more oil we produce here at home, the lower the price should be. Sound logical. That's what happened to natural gas, right?
Over the last 10 years, we've increased U.S. natural gas production by 39%… nearly all from shale gas production. And the price of natural gas has crashed. From 2003 to 2008, natural gas averaged $6.40 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). The massive supply has driven prices down to $2.40 per mcf today. That's a 62% fall.
But natural gas is what we call a "stranded market." It's hard to ship the stuff without pipelines. We simply don't have the right infrastructure (though we're working on it). So getting natural gas out of North America is tough. Since we can't get it out, we're stuck with extra supply… and prices are low.
However, we can ship oil. It's much easier to do. That's why the oil price is set globally. Oil tankers can circle the globe to take product wherever the best prices are. That means extra production here at home isn't going to reduce the global oil price.
And besides, we're not likely to need to export any of that new oil.
We consume about 5.3 billion barrels of oil per year. Our total production in 2019 will be around 2.7 billion barrels, leaving a 2.6 billion-barrel deficit. Regardless of the campaign promises, we're still going to be importing oil.
It is crucial for the U.S. to continue to explore and exploit domestic oil supplies. It is vitally important to connect Canadian crude to U.S. refining infrastructure, too. But none of that will substantially reduce the cost of oil… or, for that matter, the cost of a gallon of gas.
The lesson for energy consumers is that you can't count on a politician to sway the global oil market. For energy investors, the picture is a little brighter…
As long as oil prices stay elevated, companies participating in the oil shale boom are going to make a fortune. Continental Resources (CLR), Encana (ECA), and Marathon Oil (MRO) all have major positions in oily shales in the U.S. They will benefit from rising oil production in the long term… and so will their shareholders.
Good investing,
Matt Badial
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Fitting the profile
By Mike Leavitt, Guest columnist
Thanks to some charges leveled by former Sen. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney's stewardship of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games has become the subject of a curious controversy. Among other things, Santorum has suggested that Mitt succeeded thanks only to a "federal bailout." As I was governor of Utah at the time, I'm in a unique position to set the record straight.
Here are the facts:
Four years before the Games were to begin, they got caught up in a scandal. Sponsors began to withdraw and the budget of the Games was nearly $400 million over anticipated expenditures. A new leader was needed. Utah was at risk financially, and I personally engaged in the search for the right person. I found Mitt Romney, who had a distinguished career in business, helping to start new companies and turn around failing ones.
Within weeks of his arrival, Mitt had laid out a revitalized vision for the Games. Mitt assembled a new team to bring the budget under control. I repeatedly heard him explain that if the budget was to be balanced, every spending request had to be divided into needs and wants. He called on the people of Utah to volunteer to close the gap. I'll never forget the ad he placed in Utah papers. It read: "Help wanted; hard work, no pay, better hurry." Fifty thousand people responded.
When the Games had concluded, they were an unqualified success. In a world still reeling from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, people across the globe were assured that they could gather in safety to celebrate the highest qualities of the human family. Mitt Romney's leadership had turned the $400 million deficit into a $100 million surplus. It was a spectacular turnaround. Sen. Santorum's suggestion that only a "federal bailout" made all this possible is flatly wrong. We looked to the federal government only to assist with security and necessary infrastructure. Throughout, Mitt did the right thing, and he did it extraordinarily well.
After the Olympic Games had concluded, Mitt Romney returned to Massachusetts where he was elected governor. His state had a $3 billion deficit and the economy needed a turnaround. With the same discipline he used in business and the Olympics, at the end of four years he turned it into a $2 billion rainy-day fund.
The bottom line is this: The profile of the person we were looking for to rescue the Olympics matches almost perfectly what United States needs in our next president. We need a leader who can return us to fiscal responsibility, discern between those things that are needs and wants, and inspire a demoralized people to believe again. Mitt Romney is a leader who can do those things, and more.
Leavitt served as Utah's governor from 1993-2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
A report released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget will add some $6.7 trillion in deficits over the next decade, almost doubling the federal debt by 2022. The administration, meanwhile, had said its proposal would actually cut the debt by $3.2 trillion.
That followed a CBO report released Thursday that predicted up to 20 million Americans could lose employer-provided insurance under Obamacare – a staggering figure for a law that was supposed to move the nation toward near-universal coverage.
“So we have the Obama administration lying about the cost of healthcare now lying about the cost of Obama’s budget, not to mention the President lying about oil and green energy and all of that,” said Limbaugh. “It’s stunning! Phony numbers!”
“The bottom line is that virtually every set of number that we get from the Obama administration simply are not true.”
Since nothing can be trusted coming out of the administration, Limbaugh said, he suggested that House Republicans re-evaluate the unemployment numbers recently released by the administration.
“I’d like to posit a question for perhaps Republicans in the House of Representatives,” Limbaugh declared. “Why not investigate the unemployment numbers?”
“If they’re lying to us dramatically about the cost of health care and if they are lying to us dramatically about budget deficits coming down, isn’t it likely that they are lying to us about their unemployment numbers every week?”
On healthcare, Limbaugh said believes the number of uninsured under Obamacare will be even higher than the CBO’s prediction of some 20 million without coverage.
“This is not news to me,” Limbaugh said. “I said [back in March 2010] that the first casualty of healthcare in America is going to be your employer-provided health plan.”
“So 20 million are going to lose their employer-provided insurance – try 50 million. That’s what it’s going to be.”
Two years ago, Limbaugh says he predicted Obamacare would not live up to its hype or keep its promises.
“You’re not going to be able to keep your doctor, despite Obama saying you could. You’re not going to be able to keep your plan, despite Obama saying you could. And now 20 million Americans are going to lose their employer-provided coverage,” said Limbaugh.
“The American-left dream of national healthcare, single-parent healthcare, by definition ships it all to government. The specifics in the Obamacare law are going to make it impossible for the private sector health insurance companies to stay viable by design.”
“They are going to make it impossible for your employer to afford [healthcare] as a benefit. Make it impossible for private health insurance companies to stay in business. The last option will be the government. That’s where you’re going to have to go.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michelle Lopata
A report released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget will add some $6.7 trillion in deficits over the next decade, almost doubling the federal debt by 2022. The administration, meanwhile, had said its proposal would actually cut the debt by $3.2 trillion.
That followed a CBO report released Thursday that predicted up to 20 million Americans could lose employer-provided insurance under Obamacare – a staggering figure for a law that was supposed to move the nation toward near-universal coverage.
“So we have the Obama administration lying about the cost of healthcare now lying about the cost of Obama’s budget, not to mention the President lying about oil and green energy and all of that,” said Limbaugh. “It’s stunning! Phony numbers!”
“The bottom line is that virtually every set of number that we get from the Obama administration simply are not true.”
Since nothing can be trusted coming out of the administration, Limbaugh said, he suggested that House Republicans re-evaluate the unemployment numbers recently released by the administration.
“I’d like to posit a question for perhaps Republicans in the House of Representatives,” Limbaugh declared. “Why not investigate the unemployment numbers?”
“If they’re lying to us dramatically about the cost of health care and if they are lying to us dramatically about budget deficits coming down, isn’t it likely that they are lying to us about their unemployment numbers every week?”
On healthcare, Limbaugh said believes the number of uninsured under Obamacare will be even higher than the CBO’s prediction of some 20 million without coverage.
“This is not news to me,” Limbaugh said. “I said [back in March 2010] that the first casualty of healthcare in America is going to be your employer-provided health plan.”
“So 20 million are going to lose their employer-provided insurance – try 50 million. That’s what it’s going to be.”
Two years ago, Limbaugh says he predicted Obamacare would not live up to its hype or keep its promises.
“You’re not going to be able to keep your doctor, despite Obama saying you could. You’re not going to be able to keep your plan, despite Obama saying you could. And now 20 million Americans are going to lose their employer-provided coverage,” said Limbaugh.
“The American-left dream of national healthcare, single-parent healthcare, by definition ships it all to government. The specifics in the Obamacare law are going to make it impossible for the private sector health insurance companies to stay viable by design.”
“They are going to make it impossible for your employer to afford [healthcare] as a benefit. Make it impossible for private health insurance companies to stay in business. The last option will be the government. That’s where you’re going to have to go.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans must ensure Republicans don’t settle for partial repeal
By Rep. Steve King and Sen. Jim DeMint
Every election, voters are told that this election is the most important of our lifetimes. In most elections, it’s not really true. In 2012, though, it probably is true, for one reason: Obamacare.
Two years after a Democratic Congress and President Obama foisted onto the American people an unpopular trillion-dollar takeover of American health care, we know that Obamacare is, in fact, even more unpopular than before and that it will cost almost $2 trillion.
The American people were told Obamacare would reduce health care costs, but premiums already are jumping. The American people were told they could keep their own coverage, but a new Congressional Budget Office report says millions will lose their current coverage every year.
Indeed, the final hurdle for Obamacare’s passage was Mr. Obama’s and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s scramble to convince religiously minded Democrats that religious liberty and individual conscience rights would be protected under their new law. The recent abortion-pill mandate shows those 11th-hour promises were false.
So, as should be the case about something as important as a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the final decision about Obamacare must be made by the American people at the ballot box. Already, voters voiced their disapproval in the historic 2010 elections, which sent many Obamacare supporters to the unemployment line.
This year, the November elections will either return to Washington a pro-Obamacare president and Congress or a pro-repeal president and Congress. They will have a mandate to enact the public’s will, one way or the other.
Conservatives should affirm these certitudes: First, legislating according to the consent of the governed is what our republic is all about. Second, Obamacare - contrary to Democrats’ expectations - has only grown more unpopular since it was passed, as its ugly details have emerged and offended. Third, Obamacare is not an indirect, gimmicky campaign issue but a direct, concrete, fixable offense the president and Democrats in Congress committed against our will and in plain view.
Were the entire 2012 general election debate reduced to “candidates from this party will implement Obamacare and candidates from that party will repeal Obamacare,” that debate would do our nation credit and do great service to the electorate.
Unfortunately, the clarity of that choice may soon be muddied, not by Democrats desperate to hide from their record, but inexplicably, by Republicans pushing a vote on a bill to undo one part of Obamacare: the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
IPAB is one of the most obnoxious parts of Obamacare: The unelected, unaccountable board of “experts” who effectively will be able to decide which patients can receive which treatments at what costs and from which doctors. The essence of Obamacare is government rationing of people’s access to medicine: IPAB bureaucrats are the rationers.
So we are as adamantly opposed to IPAB as we are to the rest of Obamacare - from the individual mandate to the abortion-pill requirement to the multi-trillion-dollar price tag.
But IPAB is not distinct from Obamacare; it’s an inextricable part of the whole. As such, it should be repealed as part of the whole. The same holds true for attempts to surgically extract out the attack on religious freedom, the individual mandate and the financially unsustainable CLASS Act long-term care entitlement. Repealing little pieces of Obamacare here and there to render the cataclysmic merely disastrous undermines not only the essential causes of liberty and repeal, but the clarity of the choice the American people deserve.
The Democratic Party is the party of Obamacare. If Republicans, through their toying with Obamacare, present themselves to voters as the party of some of Obamacare, we will lose. We will deserve to lose. The blame for the coming decades of debt, dependence and decline will fall to us.
A vote to repeal only IPAB sends the message that we believe Obamacare is the patient and IPAB is the cancer that needs to be removed to save Obamacare. Our true patient is health care freedom, and Obamacare - not part of it, but all 2,000 pages - is the malignancy.
Given a choice between Obamacare as it is or full repeal, a majority of Americans and - if not now, very soon - a majority of Congress will choose full repeal. Therefore, that must be the only choice Republicans offer. Until Obamacare is fully repealed, the only health care votes Republicans should cast should be for full repeal of the unconstitutional takeover.
The idea that we can “fix” Obamacare is as fatal as the president’s conceit in contending that Obamacare would “fix” the health care system. We know what real reform looks like - people owning their own health plans; treatment decisions made privately between patients and their doctors; freedom to purchase health plans across state lines; and help for the poor, the elderly and the sick. It looks nothing like the monstrosity the president forced on us, and it looks nothing like the slightly less monstrous version partial repeals would leave us with.
The American people’s message to the Republican Party in 2010 should be the same message we send back to the people in 2012. When it comes to Obamacare, end it, don’t mend it.
Rep. Steve King is an Iowa Republican. Sen. Jim DeMint is a South Carolina Republican. Both have authored legislation to fully repeal Obamacare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Subject: A Black perspective on the Obamas
Why I Do Not Like The Obamas
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.”
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.
I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race card.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood … Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)
Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment