Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[vector7]

Obama Tells People Who Got Cancellation Letters To Check Out The Obamacare Website Even If It “Isn’t Working”…


Major facepalm.

BARACK OBAMA: So if your received one of these letters I’d encourage you to take a look at the marketplace. Even if the website isn’t working as smoothly as it should be for everybody yet, the plan comparison tool that lets you browse cost for new plans near you is working just fine.

ZIP | November 14, 2013 12:30 pm


Obama Blames His Own Government For ObamaCare Rollout



Published on Nov 14, 2013

Obama Blames His Own Government For ObamaCare Rollout (November 14, 2013)

[vector7]

Obama hearing healthcare rollout complaints 'loud and clear'

President Barack Obama speaking at the White House today. (Mandel Ngan, AFPGetty Images / November 14, 2013)

• Related
• 
• Obama pressured on dropped healthcare plans

Richard Cowan and Caroline Humer Reuters 12:08 p.m. CST, November 14, 2013


President Barack Obama offered a fix to his troubled healthcare law today that would allow insurance companies to extend for one year the health plans of Americans that would otherwise face cancellation.

Struggling to convince Americans he is on top of the growing crisis around the Affordable Care Act, Obama disclosed that he was not informed directly that the glitch-prone website might not work the way it was supposed to work when enrollment began on Oct. 1.

He declined to say that all problems with the website would be ironed out by a Nov. 30 deadline but said there would the improvements would be "marked and noticeable."

In remarks in the White House briefing room, Obama said he has not been happy about the healthcare law's rollout and that he understands Americans' frustration with it.

To those Americans who have already had their health plans canceled and complained about it, "I hear you loud and clear," he said.

In a message to congressional Republicans who are pushing an alternative to his healthcare plan, Obama said he would not accept "brazen" legislative attempts to undermine the law.

Asked if the public's trust in government was being lost because of the rollout problems, Obama said: "No doubt that people are frustrated."

"This one is deserved, it's on us," he said.

Obama said he would work hard to win back the public's confidence in his leadership.

Insurance companies may extend through 2014 the policies that would not meet the minimum standards of the president's Affordable Care Act.

Millions of Americans have been getting cancellation notices from insurance companies because their insurance plans do not meet the standards set out in the Obamacare law, creating a political crisis for Obama.

Senior White House officials said it will be left up to insurance commissioners in individual states to allow the Obamacare fix to go ahead, and will be up to insurance companies to renew plans that have already been canceled.

Insurance companies must tell policy holders that their plans do not meet the new minimum standards and must inform them about other options on the new marketplaces, including the availability of subsidies to help them pay their insurance costs, the officials said.

The fix only applies to those who have lost their insurance coverage. Insurance companies may not offer such plans to other Americans because it would undermine the Affordable Care Act, the officials said.

The Democrats Need to Stop Freaking Out About Obamacare and Take Charge

by Michael Tomasky Nov 14, 2013 5:45 AM EST

Well, here we are again—the Democrats are ‘in disarray,’ flailing on Obamacare. It’s a potent story line, but this time Obama must crack the whip, stop the panicking, and make it work.

The dawn of the 24-7 news cycle about 15 or so years ago brought with it a few new ways for the media to talk about and cover politics. With all that air time to fill, politics, and certain big news events like your major murders, became part soap opera. Soap operas, to keep the ratings steady, need running themes. What used to be called “Democrats in disarray,” known today in our hurried-up age as #demsindisarray, proved to be a compelling and durable one.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) speaks to members of the media after a hearing. (Alex Wong/Getty)

It developed, in part, because that dawn of cable happened to be the era of Clinton “scandals,” real and (mostly) imagined. Remember Craig Livingstone? If you don’t, Google him. If you do, you’re chuckling already, I know, because for about four days there on cable TV in 1996, Livingstone was supposed to be the ruination of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Democrats in disarray!

Yes, Republicans have been in disarray, too, from time to time—the low points of the Iraq War, Katrina, and just last month during the government shutdown. But for a variety of reasons, the 24-7 news cycle era has found Dems in disarray to be a far more potent story line than Republicans in disarray. It’s alliterative, for starters. And it has been, I readily concede, legitimately true at times. Plus, Fox, for many years, drove the agenda that the other cable nets swallowed hook, line, and sinker. MSNBC has been a liberal pushback channel only for five years or so, or less than half the life span of the 24-7 cycle. (Remember when Tucker Carlson was an MSNBC host?) And Republicans have tended to have tougher game faces, march more in lockstep, and not concede those crucial rhetorical inches that Democrats so often feel compelled to grant.

Of course, we are at one of these moments now. Bill Clinton conceded those rhetorical inches to the right on Obamacare, which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) seized on immediately. At least two blue-state senators, Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Jeff Merkley (OR), have jumped on the “fix Obamacare” bandwagon. A week ago, Majority Leader Harry Reid was not going to allow any changes to the Affordable Care Act reach the floor of his Senate. Now he’s probably going to have to.

Undeniably, a lot of the damage is self-inflicted, and I’ve said that already more than once. It’s a pretty good time for President Obama to crack the whip. Why he evidently didn’t earlier is still mystifying. Or maybe it’s not. He just isn’t a kick-ass-and-take-names kind of guy. But the success of his presidency may be on the line here in the next few weeks, so it’s not the worst idea for him to become one.

At the same time, there’s no need for panic. Even with the continued existence and success of Fox, reality is still reality, and in the end, reality usually trumps cable and hyperventilating reports about who won the morning in Politico. And reality says the enrollment period doesn’t end until next spring, and it’s really not possible to tell how things are going until enrollment has ended and we see both the number of people who’ve enrolled and what percentage healthy vs. sick, because insurers made their guesstimates and pegged their rates to those guesstimates. Reality also says a legislative fix to address the problems faced by those buying insurance on the private market might not be so bad. A bill that allows—doesn’t order, but allows—insurers to keep offering existing policies for one more year while also restricting that offer only to existing customers wouldn’t necessarily blow a big hole in the precepts of the act. I’m not sure why Republicans would agree to it, but the first part of my equation comes from Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)’s bill, so who knows.

Democrats have to take charge of the situation right now. In danger of losing the country’s trust, they must say in essence: “All right, we did screw up Round 1.”

Democrats—especially Obama, but all Democrats—have to take charge of the situation right now. In danger of losing the country’s trust, they must say in essence: “All right, we did screw up Round 1. We’re going to admit it, and we’re going to apologize, and we’re going to fix it, and we’re not going to bullshit you. But we’re also not going to panic. We’re going to make this thing work.”

If they do all those things, they will still come out looking a hell of a lot better than the radical obstructionists. Obama’s approval rating may be down to 40 percent, but that’s four times the Republican Congress’s rating. He can step in and take more control of the agenda here, and he and the Democrats can be seen as the ones sincerely trying to fix these problems, while the Republicans will inevitably be seen as wanting only to kill yet another law and throw yet another wrench into the engine. They will be led once again by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the man who has enticed his party to go down several rat holes already these past couple of years. He is now sitting up on his throne warning that hackers are about to steal applicants’ Social Security numbers, a charge that rings with all the veracity of his earlier accusation that the administration knowingly targeted conservative nonprofit groups.

The current situation is serious. But I remember a lot of other times when it was supposedly curtains for Obama, too, because inside the Beltway, the more disciplined Republicans, who after all are in the luxurious position of just sitting back and firing away, have an easier time winning news cycles. But out beyond the Beltway, the party that shut down the government for three weeks and killed immigration reform and wants to decimate food stamps and can’t even pass its own spending bills doesn’t look very appealing to most people. The fate of Obamacare can be changed. The DNA of the GOP cannot.

[vector7]

Obama Offers One Year “Fix” to O-Care – Until 2014 Election Is Over

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, November 14, 2013, 11:02 AM

Barack Obama to the Rescue!


Sooper Mexican

Barack Obama offered a one year “fix” to Obamacare today.

Those people who lost their plans can keep them for a year… Until the 2014 election is over.

He was a half hour late for the press conference.


President Obama:

“The rollout has been rough so far… The numbers yesterday mean Americans want affordable health care… Americans who have plans before the Care Act can keep those plans. Today we expand that… Insurers can extend those plans until 2014… I will not accept plans that wish to repeal the whole law… It’s important that we’re hones and straight forward… The Affordable Care Act is going to work for the American people.”

Then after 2014 Americans will lose their plan again.

Funny, the president forgot to attack the bad apple insurance companies today.

[American Patriot]

Ummm most people that lost their plans can't get them back. The costs aren't going to go down for me. Obama is a fucking loser and his administration is about to lose BIG time. VERY big time.

There is shit in the works he's going to regret very much. Tough shit on him.

When the smoke and dust clears he's going to be tried for treason to this country. He just don't see it coming yet.

He is an incompetent dumb ass who should never, EVER should have held ANY position in the US government. Not Senator, not President, not even the fucking Mayor of a small town. He should be impeached TODAY, arrested and held for treason against this country and our beliefs, our constitution and helping to destroy the America in which we all grew up.

I watched this son of a bitch on television awhile ago - he is completely incompetent. NO CEO that fucking stupid should be in any office.

[Malsua]

Can you believe this pecker head is willing to give a delay...until the next election? There's millions of rubes who will fall for it.

[vector7]

Sen. Rand Paul Reveals Barack Obama Wrote The Regulation To Cancel Your Insurance AFTER the Bill Was Already Passed!!

RandPaulReview November 13, 2013 News
Rand Paul on Obamacare [Begins @ 5:40]:



“I’m still learning about it. It’s 20,000 pages of regulations. The Bill was 2,000 pages and I didn’t realize this until this week, the whole idea of you losing or getting your insurance cancelled wasn’t in the original Obamacare. It was a regulation WRITTEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, three months later.So we had a vote, this is before I got up there. The Republicans had a vote to try to cancel that regulation so you COULDN’T BE CANCELLED, to grandfather everybody in. You know what the vote was? Straight party line. EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTED TO KEEP THE RULE THAT CANCELS YOUR INSURANCE.” [SOURCE]

[American Patriot]

Obamacare ‘fix’ affirms Obama as absolute dictator with power to change laws as he pleases

15 Friday Nov 2013
Posted by Mary W. in Government, HHS, Medical Tyranny, Obamacare, Police State
≈ Leave a Comment

Tags
Barack Obama, Dictator, dictorial powers, Insurance, Obama, Obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Tyrannical government, United States, United States Constitution, Washington Times, white house






In a desperate bid to save the rapidly collapsing Obamacare socialized medicine program, President Obama announced a “fix” yesterday that would “allow” health insurance companies to avoid cancelling whatever plans haven’t already been cancelled due to Obamacare itself.


In doing so, Obama effectively declares himself absolute dictator over all laws across the country, assuming the power to enforce, ignore or alter laws at he pleases.


The problem with this is that such powers do not exist in the Office of the President. Like everything else surrounding Obamacare, Obama himself is simply inventing new powers as he goes along and hoping no one will question his assumed (illegal) authority.


“The unexpected compromise was announced amid growing revolt within Mr. Obama’s own party over his broken promise that Americans who liked their insurance could keep it. But it sparked another backlash as some legal scholars questioned whether the president had the authority to create the loophole,” reports the Washington Times.


It also, by the way, thrust the insurance industry into a state of chaos where insurance companies now have no idea what’s going to be “law” tomorrow, next month or next year. Apparently Obama can simply change his mind at any time and decide that insurance companies are suddenly engaged in mass criminal activities which can then be prosecuted under the law as it is written.


Beware of presidents who claim absolute power over Congress


This is how Hitler rose to power, of course. It’s how every tyrant throughout history got his start. It’s also precisely what the United States Constitution prohibits in Article II, Section 3, where the language demands that the President “take care that laws be faithfully executed.”


Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any President can simply choose to selectively ignore laws passed by Congress. Thus, Obama’s new “fix” is blatantly illegal from the start.


Even if it were legal under the U.S. Constitution, it is clearly discriminatory, allowing the White House to essentially decide which insurance companies “get” to be ignored by the law and which companies will be prosecuted for “illegally” keeping policies in place that violate the Affordable Care Act as written. This only creates yet more centralization of power in the White House, giving them the tools to silence dissent among insurance companies by wielding prosecutorial discretion as a political weapon.


Read more at Natural News

[American Patriot]

good one, lol

One Republican’s Mea Culpa: Yes, I Am To Blame For The Failure Of ObamaCare

I watch Fox News at home, and every time the subject of the failure of ObamaCare came up, I would hear liberals such as Juan Williams make it his primary point that Republicans always wanted ObamaCare to fail to begin with. Which [of course] obviously made it our fault that it is failing.


I see articles like this one in the Washington Post demanding to know “Who are the make-Obamacare-fail dead-enders, anyway?“


Who are we, indeed? Or, to put it in liberal-blame terms, “Just who the hell do we think we are?”


I, as a representative Republican conservative, take it upon myself to accept the blame that liberals demand I wear around my neck albatross-fashion: I am responsible for ObamaCare and its failure.


It took me a while to figure out just HOW I was to blame, given that I never wanted the damn demonic law to begin with, but I think I finally understand.


You see, Democrats and liberals are people with pathologically inferior minds. They are morally depraved, lesser beings. And what happened is that the negative energy of my clearly superior conservative brain somehow affected the cud-chewing Democrat brain, such that my negative energy further retarded them and made them stupid.


So how could the ObamaCare web site designers hope to succeed? Even when they spent $634 million to build a website that four millions of small porn sites somehow built for pennies on the dollar???


The problem, of course, is that “Glitch Girl” just didn’t stimulate the way that all those porn site girls did, I guess (at least the porn girls presumably get paid for what they sell). But that is my fault, too.


The Face of ObamaCare herself never enrolled in this turd a.k.a. “The Affordable Care Act.” But that is my fault.


How could the product of such pathologically inferior minds possibly get off the ground with my superior brain waves influencing all and everything around me???


Can I be like a liberal here and beg forgiveness on the basis of my good intentions? How could I know that my mind was so superior and that the minds of Democrats were so inferior that my negative brain energy would dominate all the liberals around me and make them so stupid and so incompetent that their “signature legislative accomplishment” would blow up like the Hindenburg???


So there it is. Pass it around. Unlike Obama, I fully accept responsibility. It was because of me that liberals and Democrats wanted this stupid thing, wrote this stupid thing, voted for this stupid thing and implemented this stupid thing. And even though liberals did it all by themselves, my negative brain waves were insidiously affecting them at every step of the way.


Now, for those conservatives who would still insist that they bear no responsibility for the failure of ObamaCare, I make one comparison: to Elizabeth Smart.


Yes, just like Elizabeth Smart, conservatives like myself were forcibly abducted from our health care system that we preferred. We had no say-so. We didn’t vote for the damn thing. We didn’t get to participate in it in any way. We had nothing to do with its implementation or the stupid website or the 18,000 pages of regulations that Obama wrote after the law was passed.


Yes, just like Elizabeth Smart, we were forced to participate in this system whether we wanted it or not. We didn’t get to issue waivers to ourselves the way Obama issued waivers to all his union and corporate cronies.


But that’s besides the point, you see: because in spite of the fact that Elizabeth Smart was abducted, in spite of the fact that she was forced to take part in a “relationship” she never wanted, in spite of the fact that she was repeatedly raped, HAD SHE JUST WANTED IT, THE RELATIONSHIP WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED.


If Elizabeth Smart had just accepted her new status and desired to be raped, everything would have been good. But to her great blame, there remained some part of her that didn’t want any of it. That poisoned the relationship.


It was Elizabeth Smart’s fault her relationship with her rapist abductor failed, you see. At least in the minds of the Democrats who abducted Republicans and forced them to participate in the sick, twisted “relationship” otherwise known as the ObamaCare mandate.


Accept your blame, ye rape-hating Republicans. The failure of ObamaCare is truly all your fault. How dare you never have wanted it to begin with. How dare you.

[American Patriot]

OBAMA’S INSURANCE ‘FIX’ IS UNCONSTITUNIONAL

Posted by tomfernandez28 on November 15, 2013
Posted in: Uncategorized. Tagged: 11/15/2013, America, congress, democrat, Democrats, GOP, HEALTHCARE.GOV, HOWARD DEAN, Obama, obamacare, President Obama, Republican, the Affordable Care Act, The Constitution, The United States, The White House, Washington D.C.. Leave a Comment


Outlets are quoting Democratic operative Howard Dean saying of President Barack Obama suspending certain Obamacare requirements, “I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this.”


To remove all doubt: The Take Care Clause of the Constitution absolutely forbids any president from doing exactly what Obama did Thursday.


Obama said he would allow insurance companies to keep offering previously-offered insurance plans that Americans would like to keep. Nobody knows if this means all plans, or only some of them, and how the White House will make such determinations. He says he has “enforcement discretion” to make this change to the Affordable Care Act unilaterally, without consulting Congress.


This is a frightening claim of a sweeping power that is completely inconsistent with the Constitution. A president has “prosecutorial discretion” to prioritize which lawbreakers to prosecute in federal court, but there is no “enforcement discretion” to determine which laws on the books he will enforce.


Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution commands of every president: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Like every provision in the Constitution, it has a legal meaning—and that meaning is the Supreme Law of the Land, which Congress, the courts, and—yes—each president is bound by his oath of office to follow carefully.


Everyone should know from their high-school government classes that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to make federal laws, and Article II of the Constitution gives the American president the executive power to administer and enforce those laws. Article II then includes the language about how the president must faithfully execute those laws.


Among other things, the Take Care Clause was inserted in the Constitution to abolish the Royal Prerogative that the Framers of the American Constitution knew from their lives as Englishmen. It was the power of the king of England to disregard or effectively suspend Acts of Parliament. The king could not make laws, but he could shelve a law that Parliament had passed.


Obama’s announcement is a flagrant and undeniable violation of his constitutional duty under the Take Care Clause. The provisions of Obamacare causing enormous trouble for insurance plans are mandatory, and only Congress can change those parts of the Affordable Care Act. Every day provides additional proof that Obamacare is a complete train wreck, but it is one regarding which only Congress can change the terms.


This president’s relationship to Congress is reaching toxic levels, due in large part to the regularity of his hyper-partisan rhetoric and ongoing disrespect. He is learning that the campaign tactics that enabled him to win two presidential elections are manifestly counterproductive when applied to the arduous task of governing, especially in a country as large and diverse as America.


It is not clear at this point whether anyone would have standing to sue over this matter in court. If the experts who are saying today that this unilateral move will only make matters worse are correct, someone might suffer an individualized injury that they could litigate.


President Obama should hope that doesn’t happen, because if a federal court can get past the procedural hurtles to reach the merits of the case, it’s an open-and-shut case that this president’s actions are unconstitutional—again.

[vector7]

Dem Senator: 'We All Knew' Obama Was Lying

Obama should have been "more specific," Gillibrand explains.



Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) admitted Sunday to knowing the promises President Obama made about his signature health care plan were false. On ABC’s This Week, fill-in host Martha Raddatz asked Gillibrand where she felt misled by Obama, considering the fact that the President said that Americans who wanted to keep their health care plans could do so. Gillibrand answered:

He should’ve just been more specific. Because the point is, if you’re being offered a terrible health care plan, that the minute you get sick you’re going to have to go into bankruptcy, those plans should never be offered.

Following up on an obvious non-answer, Raddatz asked again about being misled. This time, Gillibrand offered a startling revelation:

He should’ve just been specific. No, we all knew. The whole point of the plan is to cover things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy. How many women, the minute they get pregnant, might risk their coverage. How many women paid more because of their gender, because they might get pregnant. Those are the reforms.

[American Patriot]

Wow... the Dems imploding. COOL!

[Avvakum]

Wow... the Dems imploding. COOL!

Thole whole American political system is imploding, i'm beginning to think 'Obamacare' was intended to self-destruct and that it is a huge distraction from the real threat.

[American Patriot]

I hope it does self-destruct.

Gives us a chance to remove him from office, legally.

[Malsua]

If Obama throws enough people under the bus, nothing will implode.

[vector7]

CNN Blames Christians for Obamacare Problems



by Joel B. Pollak 8 Nov 2013

CNN has blamed Christians for the problem of Americans without health insurance, calling it "The Obamacare 'scandal' you haven't heard about." In an article on CNN.com's Belief Blog, CNN writer John Blake says that, while famous pastors "preach in states where crosses and church steeples dot the skyline," they do nothing about "the poor who can’t get the health insurance they would receive if they lived elsewhere."

That refers, in turn, to the decision of twenty-five states not to participate in Obamacare's expanded Medicaid funding. The states were allowed to opt out following last year's controversial Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, which upheld the law as a whole but struck down the mandatory state participation in Medicaid expansion, citing the protection provided to state powers under the Tenth Amendment.

Some Republican states took the funding anyway, which provides health insurance subsidies for households with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level. Though the federal government will initially cover almost all of the cost, many Republican governors are wary of potential future costs, and are also worried about the effect on the federal budget itself. Many are also opposed to participating in the Obamacare program on principle.

CNN seems to think that the choice to opt out of Obamacare is somehow the responsibility of well-known pastors such as Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes, who declined to comment for Blake's article. One minister, Rev. Phil Wages, said he would not preach that states should accept Medicaid funding because he does not believe that care for the poor is the primary responsibility of the government, according to Christian teachings.

Beyond that, most churches are non-profit organizations whose tax-exempt status might be threatened if they became involved in political causes. Blake recognizes that, but strongly suggests that churches have a duty regardless. (Curiously, he does not suggest that churches should preach against Obamacare because of the millions of families that are losing their health insurance plans, contrary to the president's promises.)

Blake covers different perspectives on the question of speaking out. But the premise of CNN's article is that churches are to blame for Obamacare's failures--not the federal government, not the Democrats who passed it, and not President Barack Obama himself. The thinly-veiled implication--a repeated theme in leftist critiques--is that Christians are hypocrites who care about personal salvation, but not about good works.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...acare-Problems

[vector7]

Oprah: White people Have to Die for Racism to End

By Noel Sheppard | November 15, 2013 | 12:18

Oprah Winfrey, one of the wealthiest people in the world, is throwing the race card again.

During an interview with the BBC Friday, she not only said that President Obama is treated with disrespect because he’s black, but also that entire generations of racists are going to have to die for racism to end (video follows with transcript and commentary):

WILL GOMPERTZ, BBC: The issue of the civil rights movement, and the way that black people around the world are treated, particularly I suppose in, around the world…
OPRAH WINFREY: Around the world.
GOMPERTZ: Around the world. Look at place like Russia, it’s, you know…
WINFREY: Around the world.
GOMPERTZ: So is this, is this, I suppose from a movie point of view, what the movie and the messages hold and the other movies we were discussing, and “Scottsboro Boys,” are these historical comments or are we still looking at a contemporary issue?
WINFREY: Good question. Well phrased. Good job. It would be foolish to not recognize that we have evolved in that we’re not still facing the same kind of terrorism against black people en masse as was displayed with the Scottsboro boys. It’s gotten better. Are there still places where people are terrorized because of the color of their skin, because of the color of their black skin? Yes. But there are laws that have allowed us to progress beyond what we saw in the Scottsboro boys and beyond the even the prejudice we see in “The Butler.”

Notice that Winfrey added "color of their black skin." Why not just leave it as "color of their skin?"
Why do folks such as her only see racism through the prism of how blacks are treated? By looking at the problem so narrowly, doesn't it make matters worse?
We are by far the most diverse nation in the world containing more ethnic and religious groups than any other on the planet.
Likely each of them has at times rightly or wrongly felt mistreated for the color of their skin or their religious beliefs.
When we as a nation look at this problem more honestly and not just as it pertains to one group, racism will have a chance of being solved.
Unfortunately, Winfrey has another solution:

GOMPERTZ: Are you saying problem solved?



WINFREY: I’m saying problem not solved. I’m saying that, you know, that’s the beauty of a film like “The Butler,” and it’s the beauty of a film like “12 Years a Slave,” and it’s the beauty of what we’re seeing on stage with “Scottsboro Boys” is that it allows people to see where the root of the problem started. It allows people to see, “Oh, that’s where it all started, this is how far we’ve come, and now this is how much farther we need to go.” Of course problem is not solved. You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem’s not solved. As long as there are people who still, there’s a whole generation – I say this, you know, I said this, you know, for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own, you know, community in the south - there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.

So in Winfrey's view, it's older white people that are the problem, and once they die, racism ends.
Yet three months ago, she said of the George Zimmerman verdict, "It's ridiculous to look at that case and not to think that race was involved."
Zimmerman's only 30 years old and is Hispanic.
It is patently absurd to suggest that racism is caused by old white people when racism and religious bigotry cut across all generations and ethnicities.
But folks such as Winfrey don't want to look at it that way, for they have a different agenda:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

GOMPERTZ: Do you think, has it ever crossed your mind that some of the treatment of Obama and the challenges he’s faced and some of the reporting he’s received is because he’s an African-American, and if he wasn’t an African-American, if he was a white guy, those wouldn’t have happened, he wouldn’t have been treated in quite the same way, he wouldn’t have to deal with quite the same confrontations?

Some question, huh? You'd think Obama was the first president to ever have challenges and confrontations. Was Gompertz on another planet when George W. Bush was regularly being attacked by his opponents?
With the race card nicely placed on the tee, Winfrey predictably hit it a long way:

WINFREY: Has it ever crossed my mind? It’s crossed my mind probably as many times as it’s crossed your mind. Probably it’s crossed my mind more times than it’s crossed your mind. Just the level of disrespect. When the Senator yelled out, “You’re a liar.” Remember that? Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African-American.

What Winfrey conveniently ignores is that she endorsed and campaigned for Obama BECAUSE he was an African-American. He wouldn't have gotten her support or been elected if he wasn't.
More importantly, if he was just some white guy from Chicago that nobody had ever heard of, he never would have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2008.
How sad that she forgets that.

But that's not the saddest part about folks like Winfrey throwing the race card this way.

What's sadder is that as an African-American woman that has attained a level of success and notoriety greater than 99.99 percent of the people that have or ever will walk on this planet, she could be a positive role model concerning racism rather than helping to fuel it.

Why doesn't someone of Winfrey's obvious intellectual prowess understand that?

Imagine how much better it would have been for all Americans including blacks if she answered Gompertz's racially charged question this way:
Is some of the treatment of Obama because he's an African-American? Maybe some. But I think that's exaggerated. The President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet receiving greater scrutiny than any other. As a result, he's challenged by people on both sides of the aisle, and that's a good thing because it acts to prevent him or her from becoming too powerful.

Unlike other nations, our President is not a king or dictator, and although many claim the treatment of Obama is harsher because he's black, I would say that for the most part, he isn't being treated any differently than George W. Bush before him or Bill Clinton before him. In fact, I would make the case that because he's black, he's been treated far better by most of the media than any President in my lifetime.

So let's not be so quick to throw the race card all because Obama has his critics. That comes with the territory, and if you don't have big enough shoulders to take the hits, you should have never campaigned for the job.

Imagine the headlines and the positive example Winfrey could have set by telling people the truth.

Is that just too difficult for her? Doesn't she know that every time she dishonestly throws the race card, she's undermining a solution?
Oh. That's right. Her solution is that generations of racists have to die to solve the problem.

Unfortunately, with folks like her out there fanning the fires of discontent, they're inculcating new generations with racist thoughts thereby making it necessary for A LOT of generations to die off before this problem ever gets solved.
How truly unfortunate for our nation.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2kp1wIMph



Days later Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton honoured with Medal of Freedom


President Barack Obama awards to Oprah Winfrey the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2013, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

Darlene Superville, The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:28PM EST

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama opened a day of tributes to former President John F. Kennedy on Wednesday by bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on prominent Americans, 50 years after Kennedy was assassinated weeks short of the medal's first award ceremony.

Obama presented the medal -- the highest award the U.S. gives a civilian -- to entertainer Oprah Winfrey, former President Bill Clinton, and leaders from the worlds of sports, entertainment, science and public service. The late Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, was awarded the medal posthumously.



Holder Characterizes American Citizens as Violent Bigots


'You want freedom? You gonna have to kill some crackers!'

New Black Panther Obama DOJ refused to prosecute: 'I hate white people – all of them!'

Published: 07/07/2010 at 11:45 PM by Chelsea Schilling Email | Archive

Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.

“You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”

Those were the words of Minister King Samir Shabazz, also known as Maurice Heath, the New Black Panther Party’s Philadelphia leader.

Shabazz is the same man the Obama administration Department of Justice refused to prosecute after he was filmed on Election Day 2008 with Jerry Jackson wearing paramilitary uniforms, carrying a nightstick and blocking a doorway to a polling location to intimidate voters.

The following YouTube video posted by Naked Emperor News shows his statements during a National Geographic special on the New Black Panthers:



“I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate ‘em,” Shabazz shouts into a megaphone on a crowded sidewalk. “Through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore [expletive] on our arms. And we call ourselves black men with African garb on.”

Then Shabazz spotted a black man embracing a white woman.

“What the hell is wrong with you, black man?” he shouted into his megaphone. “You [inaudible] with a white girl on your damn arm!
“You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”

In a 2008 interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sabazz said, “I’m about the total destruction of white people. I’m about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy. …”

National Geographic describes the New Black Panther Party as “a militant hate group headquartered in Washington, D.C., that seeks to redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what it sees as white supremacy.”

The party has marched on Independence Day, dragging American flags through the streets, trampling the flag on the ground and setting it on fire. The following video shows members of a New York chapter protesting celebration of Independence Day at an event called “4th of U-lie” on July 5, 2008. Members say the day is not a celebration of independence for blacks.

As WND reported, one poll watcher called police on Nov. 4, 2008, after he reportedly saw Shabazz brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters just 15 feet outside a Philadelphia polling location. Shabazz stood in front of the building with Jackson.

“As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,” the witness told Fox News at the time. “So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they’d been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.”

He said the man with a nightstick told him, “‘We’re tired of white supremacy,’ and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, ‘OK, we’re not going to get in a fistfight right here,’ and I called the police.”

According to various witnesses, the men also hurled racial epithets such as “white devil” and “cracker” and told voters they should prepare to be “ruled by the black man.” One person said the men called a Republican poll worker a “race traitor” and told him there would be “hell to pay.”

The following is a YouTube video of the Election Day incident:



Career Department of Justice attorneys headed by voting-section chief Chris Coates filed a case under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants, accused the men of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.

The original Department of Justice complaint named Shabazz, Jackson and two other defendants: the New Black Panther Party and its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who planned deployment of 300 members on Election Day.

A federal judge ordered default judgments against the New Black Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The DOJ trial team had won its case.

Even though DOJ lawyers had won, the Obama administration suddenly ordered it dropped – against advice of prosecutors who brought the case.
In April, the New Black Panther Party released a statement blaming Republicans, “tea-party racists” and “right-wing circles” for complaining and harassing the organization.

“Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin,” it states. “The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego.”

Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney who quit his job after over the Obama administration’s refusal to prosecute the Panthers, claims the administration has ordered the DOJ not to pursue voting-rights cases against black people. He said the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the dismissal, subpoenaed him and Coates, but their DOJ superiors ordered them not to testify – a violation of federal law.

“The case was dismissed on May 15, [2009],” Adams told Fox News. “All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.”

Only one of four defendants, Samir Shabazz, faced punishment: a temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn’t call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.

“We were ordered to dismiss the case,” Adams said. “I mean, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party.”

The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on the evidence that the case could not go forward.

As WND reported, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has suggested it is now expanding its review of claims that the DOJ implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.

At a hearing in Washington this week, Adams testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ’s primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites. He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.

According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that “the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities.”

Meanwhile, Pajamas Media reports that three more former DOJ officials are stepping forward to support Adams’ testimony. According to the report, the former employees have “expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance and outstanding record of enforcing the law without bias.”

Pajamas Media adds, “Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ” and even offer their own accounts of purported DOJ hostility to “race-neutral law enforcement.”

Asheesh Agarwal, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division, worked with Adams on several cases. He called Adams a “model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting-rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology.”

Mark Corallo, former DOJ director of public affairs, added: “I am not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as written and passed by Congress – the New Black Panther case is glaring proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others.”

Finally, Robert Driscoll, former deputy assistant attorney general who knew Adams, told Pajamas Media:

If this is indeed the view of senior career DOJ staff – that after reviewing the facts of the New Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in the lawsuit — then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it.

Career Department of Justice attorneys headed by voting-section chief Chris Coates filed a case under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against four defendants, accused the men of attempting to engage in, and engaging in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of individuals aiding voters.

The original Department of Justice complaint named Shabazz, Jackson and two other defendants: the New Black Panther Party and its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who planned deployment of 300 members on Election Day.

A federal judge ordered default judgments against the New Black Panthers after party members refused to appear in court. The DOJ trial team had won its case.

Even though DOJ lawyers had won, the Obama administration suddenly ordered it dropped – against advice of prosecutors who brought the case.
In April, the New Black Panther Party released a statement blaming Republicans, “tea-party racists” and “right-wing circles” for complaining and harassing the organization.

“Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin,” it states. “The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego.”

Christian Adams, a former DOJ attorney who quit his job after over the Obama administration’s refusal to prosecute the Panthers, claims the administration has ordered the DOJ not to pursue voting-rights cases against black people. He said the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is investigating the dismissal, subpoenaed him and Coates, but their DOJ superiors ordered them not to testify – a violation of federal law.
“The case was dismissed on May 15, [2009],” Adams told Fox News. “All the charges were dropped against three of the defendants and the final order against one of the defendants was a timid restraint.”

Only one of four defendants, Samir Shabazz, faced punishment: a temporary injunction against appearing at Philadelphia polls with a weapon. The department stopped at the injunction and didn’t call for criminal penalties, monetary damages or other civil penalties.

“We were ordered to dismiss the case,” Adams said. “I mean, we were told drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party.”
The Department of Justice said it made a decision based on the evidence that the case could not go forward.

As WND reported, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has suggested it is now expanding its review of claims that the DOJ implemented a ban on prosecuting defendants who are black.

At a hearing in Washington this week, Adams testified that staffers throughout the department have subscribed for years to the notion that the DOJ’s primary responsibility is to protect the voting rights of minority voters, not whites. He added that recent Obama administration DOJ appointees have reinforced this notion by making such racial discrimination a formal departmental policy.

According to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, an Obama appointee at the top of the department, announced at a policy meeting that “the voting section will not bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities.”

Meanwhile, Pajamas Media reports that three more former DOJ officials are stepping forward to support Adams’ testimony. According to the report, the former employees have “expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance and outstanding record of enforcing the law without bias.”

Pajamas Media adds, “Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ” and even offer their own accounts of purported DOJ hostility to “race-neutral law enforcement.”

Asheesh Agarwal, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division, worked with Adams on several cases. He called Adams a “model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting-rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology.”

Mark Corallo, former DOJ director of public affairs, added: “I am not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as written and passed by Congress – the New Black Panther case is glaring proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others.”
Finally, Robert Driscoll, former deputy assistant attorney general who knew Adams, told Pajamas Media:

If this is indeed the view of senior career DOJ staff – that after reviewing the facts of the New Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in the lawsuit — then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/175817/#WATLuW2792owaQuK.99
Black Panther Obama DOJ refused to prosecute: 'I hate white people – all of them

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/175817/#WATLuW2792owaQuK.99
New Black Panther Obama DOJ refused to prosecute: 'I hate white people – all of them!'

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/175817/#WATLuW2792owaQuK.99

New Black Panther Obama DOJ refused to prosecute: 'I hate white people – all of them!'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/175817/#WATLuW2792owaQuK.99

New Black Panther Obama DOJ refused to prosecute: 'I hate white people – all of them!'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/175817/#WATLuW2792owaQuK.99

Michelle Obama in 2008: Barack Will Make Us 'Sacrifice' for Health Care



by Joel B. Pollak
26 Nov 201
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...or-Health-Care

A video has surfaced from the presidential campaign trail in May 2008 that shows Michelle Obama talking about the sacrifices that Americans would have to make in order to achieve her husband's health care goals.

The future First Lady was speaking at a meeting of military families to highlight the cost of war for those back at home. Her remarks have been referred to in several Internet postings but no video has surfaced until now.

Mrs. Obama says:It's going to cost us something as a society to say, 'We can't tolerate millions of people uninsured. We can't tolerate it.' But in order for all of us to get a little bit more, a whole bunch of us are going to have to give up a little something that we have. And that's not, sort of, what we've been taught…

Alright, so if you have a leader like Barack, who is saying, 'Yes, we know how much this is gonna cost--it's gonna cost us billions, but we can do it,' what are we willing to sacrifice to make that sure we have the resources to do it?…

But that's--that's the mindset that has to change, with what does it mean to live in a society, what does it mean to be an American, and what kind of sacrifice do we all have to make?...

Continued......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ON BREITBART TV



FLOTUS Flashback: We Have To Give Up What We Had, Sacrifice For Obamacare

[American Patriot]

Youth Break With President Over Health Care in Harvard Poll

John McCormick, ©2013 Bloomberg News

Published 9:47 am, Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Tweet
0

Larger | Smaller

Printable Version

Email This
Font

(Updates with polling director comments starting in fourth paragraph. For more on Obamacare, see EXT2.)

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The nation’s youth, a group that twice rallied behind President Barack Obama at the ballot box, is failing to support his signature domestic achievement and increasingly disillusioned with his presidency.
More than half of those 18 to 29 years old say they disapprove of Obamacare and half expect it will increase their health-care costs, a survey by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics shows. Four in 10 say they anticipate the quality of their coverage will get worse because of the law.
In a finding perhaps even more troubling for the White House, almost half in that age group, the so-called millennials, say they’re unlikely to enroll in insurance through a government exchange, even if eligible. That could put at risk the economics of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which needs young, healthy people to enroll in large numbers to offset the costs of caring for older, sicker Americans.
“There are very few aspects of the health-care initiative that they approve of,” John Della Volpe, the institute’s polling director, said today on a conference call. “They think quality will decrease, that prices will increase, so it’s not surprising that has taken a significant hit to the president’s approval rating.”

Youth Summit

The survey underscores the challenge as Obama, 52, and his surrogates mount a three-week offensive to try to highlight the 2010 law’s benefits. The president will speak today at a White House “Youth Summit” that aims to “help get the word out to young Americans about how to enroll” in the program, according to an administration statement.
An estimated 15.7 million Americans age 19 to 29 lack insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that works to expand access to health care. The White House has said it needs 2.7 million young adults to buy insurance through the government-run marketplaces that opened Oct. 1. Without this group, premiums for older Americans with costlier medical issues will rise, and the health-care program could falter.
Trey Grayson, the institute’s director, said Obama has failed to communicate the law’s benefits to young people, a group especially turned off by troubles that plagued the program’s federal signup site because they’re a generation that “lives digitally.” He said young people are also hearing more stories about how they’re needed to subsidize the costs of insurance for older Americans and not enough about the risks they face in being uninsured.

‘Rational Conclusion’

“It’s probably a rational conclusion that they’re drawing,” Grayson said.
Among the youth population, the president’s approval rating is sagging, as is the case with the general public. The survey found 41 percent approval for Obama, a number that drops to 34 percent when the younger Americans are asked to rate the job he is doing on health care. It was the lowest approval rating for Obama in the institute’s polling of his presidency.
Like their elders, the group is also gloomy about the nation’s direction, with 49 percent saying they think things are on the wrong track, compared with 14 percent who said things are generally headed in the right direction.
Obama’s falling numbers with young people can partly be explained by a still struggling U.S. economy that means fewer job prospects for young people after graduation, as well as growing levels of student debt, Grayson said.

Jobless Rate

“That takes its toll,” he said of an economy where unemployment remains at 7.3 percent. For young people between the ages of 20 to 24, the jobless rate is 12.5 percent.
Since the institute took its last youth survey seven months ago, Della Volpe said Obama’s approval rating has dropped 15 percentage points among young women, by nine percentage points among young men and by 12 percentage points among the youngest segment of the group, those 18 to 24. A majority of those in the youngest segment would vote to recall the president, if they could, he said.
Even among young African-Americans, one of Obama’s strongest set of backers, his approval has dropped from 84 percent in the last survey to 75 percent in this one.
“This is an across-the-board problem,” Grayson said. “You are seeing cracks in his base.”

Second Guesses

Some young voters are second-guessing their support for Obama in his 2012 re-election campaign. The survey shows 55 percent say they backed him in that contest, while 46 percent say they would support him if they could recast their ballots. At the same time, support for last year’s Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, is up by just 2 percentage points, with 33 percent of the young voters saying they supported him in the election and 35 percent saying they would do so now.
The survey of 2,089 Americans ages 18 to 29 was taken Oct. 30 through Nov. 11, and has a margin of error of 2.1 percentage points.
Since the poll was taken, improvements have been made to the federal enrollment website. The administration said traffic on healthcare.gov exceeded 1 million users on Dec. 2.

[vector7]

CONFIRMED: Obama WH Turned Down Offer to Build O-Care Website for Free – Blew a $1 Billion Instead (Updated)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, December 4, 2013, 12:27 PM

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom today that an internet giant offered to build the Obamacare website for free.
This was confirmed during testimony today before a Congressional committee. Issa, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, said the Obama White House turned down the offer.

Bill Hemmer: Was it proven today that an internet company offered to build the website for free but the government passed on it? Was that true? Did that happen?
Rep. Darrell Issa: It was stated under oath that it was true. No one argued that it wasn’t.

The Obama administration blew over a billion dollars so far to build the failed Obamacare website.

Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmXwAEUFPIU

UPDATE: It looks like they were talking about IBM.
Via Politifact:

In a 2010 interview, IBM’s CEO said: “We could have improved quality and reduced the costs of the health-care system by $900 billion. … I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...instead-video/

[American Patriot]

They didn't blow the money, they GAVE it to their FRIENDS.... who gave kickbacks to Obama cronies.

Mark my WORDS that will come out someday

[vector7]

6