Friday, 25 October 2013

Harry Reid vs the peasants



----


                                             
 

The new Brown Line Metro - the M is for MRSA
Senator Harry Reid vs the peasantry
Want to spread the word about your newest videos? Forward this mail to your favorite contacts.

©2013 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Prince Harry Reid orders the smelly peasants away pt 2



-------




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Prince Harry Reid's guards order smelly tourists not to take photos pt 1




Someone should explore how often people are being ordered not to take photos in DC



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Sebelius Never Warned Obama About Healthcare.gov


Sebelius Never Warned Obama About Healthcare.gov
Written by Gary North on October 23, 2013

There is incompetence in government, but Kathleen Sebelius has set a new record of nonperformance.

In a CNN interview, she said that she did not personally test www.Healthcare.gov. Why not? Because she had insurance. "I have not tried signing up because I have insurance."

Of course she has insurance. She works for the government. There are no crummy ObamaCare policy options in her life. She's covered.

When did the President find out about the problems? The day the site opened. "Well, I think it became clear fairly early on, the first couple of days." It became clear. Yes.

Nobody warned him? No. "I think that we talked about having testing going forward." But then again, maybe not. It's all a little hazy.

How does the mistress of mayhem describe the site? "Well, I think there certainly are some challenges. It could be smoother. It could be easier to access."

This woman does not understand what has happened to her, her boss, and comedy routines on late-night TV.

It is always entertaining to watch some high-level bureaucrat explain why, in full public view, the bottom has dropped out. We get to hear the language of evasion. He speaks of "challenges." This is a code word for "disaster."

She said: "It could have been smoother." That is a bureaucratic response suitable for this question: "How effective was the Navy's response at Pearl Harbor?"

Is the site a complete and total disaster? Of course not. "People are signing up every day." How many people? The White House is not saying. No one is saying. Just "people." At least two.

You know a bureaucrat is in trouble when she begins to spew out raw numbers, but not the key number: the number of completed transactions.

. . . if we had an ideal situation and could have built a product and, you know, a five-year period of time, we probably would have taken five years but we didn't have five years. And certainly, Americans who rely on health coverage didn't have five years for us to wait. We wanted to make sure we made good on this final implementation of the law. And again, people can sign up. The call center is open for business. We've had 1,100,000 calls. We've had 19 million people visit the website. Five-hundred thousand accounts created and people shopping every day. So, people are signing up and there's help in neighborhoods around the country that people can have a one-on-one visit with a trained navigator and figure out how to sign up. So people are able to sign up.

This is verbal squid's ink. This is a smoke trail streaming out of the engine of a World War II fighter plane that is heading into the ocean. We are waiting for the pilot's parachute to open.

After initially stonewalling, she has agreed to testify before Congress. That will be fun to watch. C-Span will be there. The networks will be there, looking for a sound byte. Jon Stewart's note-takers will be there, gathering snippets for his opening segment.

Continue Reading on www.realclearpolitics.com

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/10/23/sabelius-never-warned-obama-healthcare-gov/#A8IpHvvdIStzBb6F.99

ObamaCare: What If It Were Fire Insurance?


ObamaCare: What If It Were Fire Insurance?
Written by Gary North on October 22, 2013

What if ObamaCare were fire insurance? It would be very special. You could buy a policy after a smoke detector in your home started blaring.

When you hear "pre-existing condition," think "blaring smoke detector."

The insurance company has a sales offer: "We insure you AFTER your home catches on fire!" It's a great offer . . . to people whose homes are on fire. It's a bad deal for people whose homes have not caught on fire, and who will pay higher premiums to cover payouts to all those who sign up immediately after they call the fire department.

In fact, no one would voluntarily pay these premiums. So, what if the government wanted this kind of coverage for all homeowners? It would have to make participation mandatory. It would have to impose fines for not participating.

President Obama has a problem. ObamaCare does not work. If the website does not work, and you cannot get through on the toll-free number, then the program is Judy Garland singing "Somewhere, Over the Rainbow."

So, he held a press conference. He gave a speech telling us how great the program is, other than the fact that you cannot sign up for it.

It was a unique press conference. It began with a promotional speech by a guest. He had a lot of back-up props: guests who supposedly had been able to buy a policy through the non-operational website.

The woman presented her testimony. That testimony is representative of the problem with the Affordable Health Care Act. It is not insurance. It is a government subsidy. Insurance is sold before you have a crisis. You do not buy fire insurance when your home is on fire. You buy it before. Not with ObamaCare. You buy it after you get sick. Then someone pays extra for your coverage. She said this:

I had applied to three private insurance companies only to be rejected due to preexisting health conditions. I am too young for Medicare, but I'm too old not to have some health issues. I was able to find a policy I am thrilled with, saving $150 a month, and much lower deductibles than my previous policy that I held through my small business.

I'm here today to encourage other people like me who needs access to quality, affordable insurance, and to tell them to have patience with such a new system. Without this ability to get this insurance, I know that a single hospital stay could have bankrupted me and my business.

In a multi-billion dollar government wealth-redistribution program, there are winners. She is a winner.

The voters have not yet seen what their premiums will be. By next year, they will find out.

The young people who will pay for older people's pre-existing conditions will find out.

In his speech, President Obama neglected to mention the fines that millions of voters will pay next year for not participating. Next year, they will find out.

The program is off to a rocky start. It will get rockier when voters find out that they will be paying for the medical expenses of desperately sick people.

ObamaCare is a great program for sick people . . . once they enroll. It's not a great program for healthy people, once the sick people enroll.

In the middle of the speech, a young woman standing behind him almost fainted. It turns out she has a pre-existing condition: type-1 diabetes. She has another. She is pregnant.

The good news for her is this: she is now covered. Someone else will pay to treat her pre-existing conditions.

All in all, it was a representative press conference. A handful of winners were there. The millions of losers have not yet paid the bills. They will.

This government-rigged insurance program is like a four-alarm fire. What is on fire is the public's freedom of choice in the health-care delivery system.

Where's the fire department? The toll-free line is busy. Call back later.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/10/22/obamacare-fire-insurance/#OEFm8JeIySVWxKKO.99

ObamaCare ‘Settled Law’? More Like Legislative Sleight Of Hand


ObamaCare 'Settled Law'? More Like Legislative Sleight Of Hand
by Ilana Mercer on 10.22.13

The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," or whatever Obamacare's undercover name was when it was smuggled into the books, was passed using legislative sleight of hand. Alluding to the broad consensus that gives law imprimatur, I quipped in "What If The Media Were Moral?" that Obamacare (unlike the Constitution) was not the law of the land.

More about the concept from Gerard Magliocca (in the WaPo):

The Affordable Care Act is not settled law because the public remains deeply divided over it: More than half of Americans are opposed. But even more critically, congressional Republicans have withheld their stamp of approval. Many Republican lawmakers refuse even to call it a law; they keep referring to it as a "bill."
Republicans offer several explanations for their rejection of the act's validity. Most often, they note that the law was passed entirely with Democratic votes. This is in contrast to other major legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support and thus became settled much more quickly.
Republicans also cite the unusual procedures used to pass the health-care act ­ most notably, the budget reconciliation process that avoided a filibuster while moving the final legislation through the Senate. This tactic left many Senate Republicans feeling cheated.

Felt cheated? They were cheated. Via Michelle Malkin: The "procedural maneuver called 'reconciliation,' used to pass Obamacare, allows a bill to pass with 51 votes instead of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. It is not intended for comprehensive and contentious pieces of legislation.

More from Prof. George Reisman on the House:

In 2010, a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, without a single Republican vote, passed "ObamaCare" by a margin of 219 to 212. In a staggering act of misfeasance, hardly a single member had read, let alone studied, the 1,900 page law (2,700 pages according to some authorities), which had been dumped into the House only days earlier. The 219 members of that House who voted for ObamaCare were willing to impose massive, and massively expensive, legislation on the American people without any real idea of what they were doing. Had those members been members of the board of directors of a private corporation, their complete and utter lack of due diligence would almost certainly have exposed them to enormous law suits and, quite possibly, criminal penalties.


http://barelyablog.com/obamacare-settled-law-more-like-legislative-sleight-of-hand/#ixzz2ia0uf8hV

Fwd: Foreign help to US could be exposed




 

 

AP sources: foreign help to US could be exposed

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_FOREIGN_COUNTRIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

By KIMBERLY DOZIER

AP Intelligence Writer

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two Western diplomats say U.S. officials have briefed them on documents obtained by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that might expose the intelligence operations of their respective countries and their level of cooperation with the U.S.

 

Word of the briefings by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence comes amid questions swirling around overseas surveillance by the National Security Agency, which has angered allies on two continents and caused concern domestically over the scope of the intelligence-gathering.

 

The two Western diplomats said officials from ODNI have continued to brief them regularly on what documents the director of national intelligence believes Snowden obtained.

 

The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the intelligence briefings publicly.

 

The Washington Post, which first reported on the matter Thursday evening, said some of the documents Snowden took contain sensitive material about collection programs against adversaries such as Iran, Russia and China. Some refer to operations that in some cases involve countries not publicly allied with the United States.

 

The Post said the process of informing officials about the risk of disclosure is delicate because in some cases, one part of the cooperating government may know about the collaboration, but others may not.

 

National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the U.S. takes the concerns of the international community seriously "and has been regularly consulting with affected partners." She declined to comment on diplomatic discussions.

 

==========================================

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

 

 

 

 

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: No money, no problem.







 

People sometimes say the darndest things!.

 

This is just too good not to share - a classic. 

In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn)  proposed that borrowers be required to

make a 5% down payment in order to qualify for a loan. 

His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a straight party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "Passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." 

I can't add anything to this, I just can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: A Purge ??







 


A Purge ??

Is this a military purge? Such as Comrade Stalin's purge of military officers in the 1930s. A purge that decimated his nation's military's leadership?


 

This strange chain of military firings is so bizarre and so unheard of that even Dianne Sawyer of ABC news reached out to cover it when the 9th, yes 9th, military commander was relieved of duty in less than a year. This doesn't include the quite long list from last year. This is just the nine senior officers fired this year alone.


 


 


 

General Carter Hamm, United States Army-Served as head of the United States African Command. Was in charge of the US African command during the fateful night of September 11, 2012 when the lives of four American citizens was taken in the Embassy in Benghazi . Hamm was extremely critical  of our Commander and Chief and stated he lied about not having reinforcements in the area on that night. Hamm "resigned and retired" on April of 2013.


  


 

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette/ United States Navy-Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three. His most recent activity served as Deputy Commander of the US Naval Forces, US Central Command. He was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of September 11, 2012. He testified before the hearing committee and said that there may not have been time to get the flight crews there but left the door open on if told when the events took place if that he could have had the aircraft launched upon cross-examination by Rep. Tray Gowdey. Recently fired from the Administrative post and relieved of Duty by the Obama Administration for "utterance of a racial slur".

 


 

Major General Ralph Baker, United States Army- Major General Baker served as the Commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar , Djibouti , Africa . Was also involved in some aspect with the incident September 11, 2012, being under the African Command. Had said he believed attack helicopters could have made it in time. Relieved of command and fired for groping a civilian (no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges filed with JAG)

 


 

 

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts, United States Army-General Roberts took command of  Fort Jackson in 2011. Was considered a rising star in his field. He served in Iraq during his service as the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, and was the Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox , KY. Relieved of Duty and Fired for Adultery. While this is still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since President Bill Clinton's indiscretions.


 

 

Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant, United States Marine Corps-Director of Strategic Planning and Policy of  for the United States Pacific Command and Commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion , Afghanistan . Highly decorated soldier with two Naval and Marine Commendations and two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals. He also has an Air Medal with a gold star. He served honorably and distinctively. He had asked about supplies to his command. He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure of proper force protection.


  


 

Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus, United States Marine Corps- Regional Commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force (a forward or frontal division) in Afghanistan. Also Highly decorated with a Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merritt w/Valor, and three Meritorious Service Commendations. Major General C.M.M.Gurganus had questioned the use of Afghanistan patrols along side American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines. Was the other commander relieved of duty for failure of proper force protection.


  

Lieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon Jr, United States Army-Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY.   He had graduated from the same academy in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through the majority of his career. He was "censored" for "an investigation" into an "improper relationship" according to The Department of Defense.  Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.


 


 

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, United States Navy-Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command. Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command. This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals, ribbons and decorations in his illustrious career. He was removed from service and fired from the military for the charge of using counterfeit poker chips (not making that up).


 


 

Last on the list, Major General Michael Carry, United States Air Force-Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) at three operational wings and served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He was Fired October 11, 2013, for "Personal Misbehavior" is what was told to ABC News. He and Giardina were both the two top Commanders over the United States Nuclear Arsenal before their dismissal within 48 hours of each other.


 

 

As ABC News reports, this is an extremely alarming rate and one of the biggest and fastest purges of military personnel ever recorded. There apparently is such a shock at this rate of firings that even a long time veteran of reporting news such as Dianne Sawyer gets heated at one point saying that two commanders in our nuclear command were canned. Our military doesn't put people who aren't highly intelligent and without squeaky clean records in these area of responsibility and leadership. Perhaps these officers didn't tow the party line, and spoke their true thoughts. Is so, that's scary. It's enough to make the staunchest of supporters of our military retch, and ask "what next step is 'he' planning?"

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Democrat Rangel: 'No Question About It' Taxpayers Should Help Him Buy Obamacare Plan







http://cnsnews.com/news/article/james-beattie/174k-year-rangel-no-question-about-it-taxpayers-should-help-him-buy

 

$174K-Per-Year Rangel: 'No Question About It' Taxpayers Should Help Him Buy Obamacare Plan

October 24, 2013 - 5:13 PM


By Ali Meyer

Subscribe to Ali Meyer RSS

 

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y) (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) says that there is "no question" that members of Congress who are paid $174,000 a year are entitled to taxpayer-funded subsidies when they purchase health insurance in the Obamacare exchanges.

In response to questions posed by CNSNews.com on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Rangel said that he considers the subsidies part of Congress' "overall compensation" even though ordinary Americans who earn $174,000 per year would have to have at least nine dependent children to qualify for the same subsidy if they bought insurance in the Obamacare exchanges.

CNSNews.com: "Earlier today, Congressman Barton on C-SPAN - who like most members of Congress makes $174,000 a year - said that he gets a $10,800 taxpayer subsidy for his health insurance, which most people who make his money would not ordinarily get in the private sector. Do you think members of Congress should be able to get that subsidy?"

Rangel: "We should not be able to get any subsidy that anybody with a life profession, who'd be getting from any other employer, and it's my understanding that the government's contribution is on square with the type of job we have in the private sector."

CNSNews.com: "So no taxpayer money for health insurance to go on the exchanges at all?"

Rangel: "I didn't say that. The federal government is our employer."

CNSNews.com: "But do you think you should get that money to go in the exchanges?"

Rangel: "No question about it. We should not lose a part of our overall compensation. Of course not."

Under Obamacare, only people whose income is below 400 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for a federal subsidy to buy health insurance on the government exchanges.

However, a recent rule made by the Office of Personnel Management allows members of Congress and their staffs to keep the taxpayer-funded  "employer contribution" they currently receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) when they enter the exchanges. The employer contribution covers about 75 percent of their premium costs.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, Senator David Vitter (R-La.) filed a "No Washington Exemption from Obamacare" amendment to the House-passed continuing resolution last month, calling it "clearly, unequivocally illegal," but it failed in the Senate.

 



__._,





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] US Government Afraid of American People





slindauer2010 posted: " By Susan Lindauer COTO Report Press TV conducted an interview with me, as a former CIA asset from Washington, about the United States spying on its people as well as its European allies. Watch video here. Below is an approximate transcription of "
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on COTO Report

US Government Afraid of American People

by slindauer2010

By Susan Lindauer COTO Report Press TV conducted an interview with me, as a former CIA asset from Washington, about the United States spying on its people as well as its European allies. Watch video here. Below is an approximate transcription of the interview. Press TV: How vast and extensive is this NSA spying program? […]

Read more of this post

slindauer2010 | October 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Tags: 4th amendment, nsa spying, stasi program | Categories: Constitution, Obama and Company, Privacy | URL: http://wp.me/pAnVO-5qn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from COTO Report.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/us-government-afraid-of-american-people/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Obama is Secretly Training HEZBOLLAH Soldiers on US Soil & They Tried to Rape a 12-Year-Old Missouri Girl









2-arab-soldiers-from-muslim-country-tried-to-kidnap-rape-12-yr-old-missouri-girl-us-military-training-them

 

October 24, 2013, - 5:11 pm

Obama is Secretly Training HEZBOLLAH Soldiers on US Soil & They Tried to Rape a 12-Year-Old Missouri Girl

By Debbie Schlussel

Two Arab soldiers–one of them Muslim and the other Christian, and both of them from the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese Army–tried to kidnap and rape a 12-year-old girl from Missouri, near Fort Leonard Wood, where they are undergoing military training.

 

Mon Oct 21 10:36:58 PDT 2013

Deputies: 2 military trainees try to abduct 12-year-old in Pulaski County

Two men training at Fort Leonard Wood are in custody after deputies say they tried to abduct a 12-year-old girl in Pulaski County Friday afternoon. view full article











 

The soldiers are here with the military of some unnamed Muslim country and are being trained by our military. Judging from the name of the Christian Arab, Antoine Chlela, it's quite clear these guys are FROM LEBANON and from the Lebanese Army. WHY are we training the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese Army? And why is it such a secret which country they are from? Oh, yeah, Hezbollah–that's why.

Two men training at Fort Leonard Wood are in custody after deputies say they tried to abduct a 12-year-old girl in Pulaski County Friday afternoon. Mohammed Mahmoud Omar Mefleh, 34, and Antoine Chlela, 31, were charged with enticement of a child and harassment. The victim told police she was playing with a sibling in her yard when Mefleh and Chlela approached her several times and tried to lure her into their vehicle. She told officers they kept asking for sexual favors.

The suspects are with a foreign military in a middle eastern country and are part of a training mission at Fort Leonard Wood, just a couple miles from where the attempted abduction took place. "There is no diplomatic immunity, they are guests and if they were diplomats it would be different, but they're here on a training mission so we treat them like any other citizen charged with a crime," said Sheriff Ron Long with Pulaski County.

Military officials are not yet commenting on this case although Sheriff Long said they are cooperating with investigation. Deputies who responded to the scene located the suspects. They were arrested and remain at the Pulaski County Jail on a $200,000 bond.

Again, what country are they from? Lebanon. Who are they controlled by? Hezbollah, which 30 years ago, yesterday, murdered 241 U.S. Marines while they slep? Why is it such a secret? Because we are TRAINING Hezbollah, on U.S. soil to boot.

And why are we "training" these Arab child molesters from a Hezbollah-controlled army? Let them train themselves.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: How Badly Will ObamaCare Screw You? Answers Here!






http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3291299

How Badly Will ObamaCare Screw You? Answers Here! - MarketTicker Forums

 

Well well lookie what the cat dragged in.

That's a link to the unsubsidized data dump -- all 78,437 records -- for each county and State under the Obamacare exchange program.  I can verify that for at least my state and county the table is correct, since you can now look it up on Healthcare.gov without creating an account first (which I am not about to do.)

There are several very interesting statistical facts that come from this.

First, if you're "27", the average premium is $266.20/month or $3,194.40 per year.  How many 27 year olds have an extra $3,200 to spend on this?  Remember, this is the price that virtually every uninsured 27 year old must be willing -- and able -- to cough up in order to prevent the model this system is predicated on from collapsing.

If those 27 year olds don't show up, and they won't, then the system collapses instantly.  If they do show up because the government threatens them with fines the economy collapses as $3,200 a year exceeds the average 27 year old's disposable personal income after mandatory expenses (e.g. food, shelter, etc.)  Remember, there are always exceptions but these premiums are averages and over large pools of people the statistical averages are what matters -- not the ends of the barbell.

It gets better.  The "average" 50 year old premium, again, for single coverage, is $452.87, or $5,434.44/year.  How many 50 year olds will find that attractive compared against what they're paying now?  Probably more of them, especially if they're already sick.  But how about the healthy ones?

Note two things as well on this account -- these premiums are for non-smokers (smoker premiums are grossly surcharged with reports being 2x the above) and they do not account for anyone other than one person.  If you are a single parent with kids (rather common) the premium on average is $610.23/month or about $7,300, and if you're a couple it's $647.86 (again, $7,774 annually.)

Now let's look at the government's own claims.  First, the CPI index claims that health insurance is 0.656% of the family budget.  What percentage of couples make $1.185 million a year?  Why do I ask?  Because that's the alleged median income for a couple if you believe the government's CPI numbers.

Yeah, right.

Next, while some people will get "tax credits" to offset these costs all that does is lard it up on the federal budget, because someone else has to pay that bill.  In other words this is the true cost that will come out of your hide one way or another -- either directly by paying, indirectly by taxation, or indirectly by destruction of your purchasing power.

Next, note that this is the "50 year old" premium but you have to be 65 to qualify for Medicare.  The price will rise each year after 50 that you happen to be and there are already reports that if you're 59 these premiums are understated by half.  How many couples who are 59 and cannot qualify for Medicare yet have not $7,700 a year of extra money laying around but north of $15,000?

That's what I thought.

Are there people for whom these are "good deals"?  Oh sure, if you're fat, sick and nearly dead they're great deals.  The person with HIV who is guaranteed to suck out $30,000 or more in treatment costs each and every year has to be ecstatic at the premise that they can pay $3,200 and get back 10x what they spend on an indefinite forward basis, forever, or at least as long as the drug cocktails they're taking let them live.  Likewise someone with other diseases such as diabetes or cancer have to love these plans; they pay an effective nothing compared to what will be spent immediately and permanently (as long as they live) on them.

But for virtually everyone else these "plans" are nothing more than financial rape.  Not only are the premiums outrageous for most but the limits on coverage, including deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket maximums means that if you get sick the so-called "price" is half or less of what you will actually spend, and this assumes you can find a doctor.

Oh, yeah, about that -- most of these plans absolutely exclude payment of anything to out-of-network physicians and facilities.  "You can keep your doctor" eh?  Uh, no.

This "program" is nothing more than the imposition of force to support a medical "system" that has systematically and intentionally destroyed the health of millions with government assistance and prodding.  You think that's overstating the case?  Well maybe it is and maybe it's not -- but what we are now learning is that the claim that you should not eat saturated fats because they're bad for you is being proved scientifically false and that one of the drug company's biggest "blockbuster" categories, statins, worth some $30 billion a year in extraction from you, are thus utterly worthless at best and might be actively harming you.

But before you start screaming about all this let's back up and look at the figures, because while $30 billion sounds like a lot it's actually not.  Nor are "medical torts"; by some figures costing $20 billion a year (although dropping.)

Let's add into this so-called "uncompensated care" -- that is, the result of EMTALA and other similar laws that "force" hospitals to "eat" the cost of care for those who have neither insurance or money.  This has been rising very rapidly (by some 400% in the last couple of decades) and currently stands at some $40 billion.

These are big numbers, right?

Well, not really.  Between the statins, torts and formal cost-shifting the total is $100 billion.

The problem is that the cost of "sick care" is in fact more than $2,700 billion a year in the economy as a whole and of that half comes from federal and state budgets and is drowning our nation in debt.

In other words if we reduced to zero all cost shifting, we got rid of all statin drug sales in the entire category (or made them "free" by force) and in addition Obamacare completely eliminated everyone who had neither insurance or money, and thus got rid of the entire uncompensated care problem we'd save a whopping......

wait for it....

3.7% of what we spend on health care annually.

In other words it wouldn't make any difference at all.

You have been told and sold otherwise by both the left (in the case of Obamacare) and right (in the case of uncompensated care and tort reform) and both sides of the aisle have knowingly lied and committed fraud against you to the tune of nearly $3 trillion dollars, or 17% of every dollar spent in the economy last year.

If you caught someone stealing that sort of money from you in the middle of the night in your house you'd shoot them, and with good cause.  So why haven't we politically shot these jackasses and then indicted and locked them up on fraud charges?

More to the point, why aren't there a few million*****ed-off Americans in Washington DC right now who are surrounding the Capitol and refusing to leave until the lies stop and the scam is excised from our economy?

Probably because nobody, other than a few such as myself, have put these numbers before you and I'm willing to bet that not one in 100 of the people who read this were aware that all three of the above factors combined, were they to be completely eliminated from the health system, would shave off less than four percent of the problem.

But now you don't have that excuse because here it is in black-letter facts and figures.

So where's all the money going when we used to spend less than 1/3rd of this much in the 1970s (as a percentage of GDP) on health care, and why is it so damned expensive that you need "forced insurance"?

That's simple: The entire health system is an organized racketeering outfit that has gotten laws passed to make their conduct legal -- conduct that in virtually any other field would be an outright criminal felony.

Think I'm kidding?  The Sherman and Clayton Acts, US Code 15 Section 1, say this:

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

The industry doesn't even try to hide their conduct.  Indeed, there are even specific laws in many states, called "Certificate Of Need" (or "CON") laws, that are formalization of cartel behavior otherwise prohibited by The Sherman Act.  This leads to utterly common situations where the price for a given procedure usually varies by as much as 400% from one hospital in a region to another and in many cases varies by more than 1,000%, and it is virtually impossible for you to determine the price before you are treated.

How else do you get a situation like the Phoenix woman who was billed more than $60,000 for two vials of scorpion antivenom that sell for $100 each in Mexico where they're made over the counter in a pharmacy, not far from Phoenix.  If you get into your car and fill the trunk with said drug you are breaking the law as soon as you cross back into the United States (and if caught will be jailed.)

You want to fix the problems with Health Care in this country and solve Federal, State and local budget problems all at once?  Break up all the monopolies by declaring unlawful all such conduct that restrains trade or fixes prices and void those laws that have made this behavior legal, mandate public disclosure and level billing of procedures, drugs and devices to all persons and prosecute and imprison violators -- all of them, starting with every single one of the health insurance, pharmaceutical and big "managed care" executives.

The cost of health care in this country would crash by 80% overnight and with a price 1/5th of what is paid now nobody would need health "insurance", save for catastrophic coverage that would cost less than you currently pay for insurance on your home or apartment contents and which you could choose to either buy or take the risk that such a catastrophe would strike and you would either have to cough up the money or die.

In addition putting a stop to this scam would immediately and permanently fix the Federal Budget without cutting one nickel of discretionary spending and it would not require gutting Medicare either.  Only very minor changes to Social Security (indexing full retirement to longevity) would be required to bring permanent budget stability and in fact we would run, right here, now and today, a budget surplus.

Wake up America before you're strangled and expire economically as a direct consequence of this three-decades-long scam.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.