Friday, May 31, 2013


I Grew up with this Idiot on the nightly news. Being the uninformed voter I did not realize how much of an Idiot this Screwball Is!

Tom Brokaw did his very best to contextualize the numerous scandals pummeling the Obama Administration by saying they don't rise up to the level of Watergate, Iran-Contra, or even Abu Ghraib. 

I was covering Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration when [Peggy Noonan] was working for that president, in which we were funding a war illegally. We were trying to make a deal with the Iranians at the time. That was a pretty big damn scandal.
Brokaw seems to be employing a tactic common among has-been journalists these days. They seem to be afraid that any story seen as "bigger" than the stories they covered in their day somehow diminishes their life work, and therefore any suggestion to this effect must be smacked down immediately. 
So, in Brokaw's opinion: 
  • The Department of Justice obtaining secret subpoenas naming reporters as an aider, abetter and co-conspirator and confiscating thousands of reporters' phone records is not as serious as Abu Ghraib. 
  • The President's inaction as our consulate was under attack in Libya, resulting in the death of four Americans at the hands of terrorists, and the Administration's efforts to mislead the press and American people during a presidential campaign doesn't rise to the level of Abu Ghraib.
  • The IRS using their power and intimidation tactics to discriminate against groups and individuals because of their political beliefs is not as significant as Abu Ghraib
Brokaw explained his rationale for making Abu Ghraib the be all and end all of presidential scandals: "Abu Ghraib was a big scandal and how it – no one was really held accountable for it."
If accountability (or lack thereof) is the new standard for scandals, then Brokaw needs to re-calibrate his memory of Abu Ghraib and the comparison to the Obama scandals. Eleven soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the Abu Ghraib incident. Meanwhile, every single government employee involved with Benghazi, the IRS, HHS fundraising, AP subpoenas and the Fox News/James Rosen subpoenas continues to cash their paychecks and are in line for full government pensions. 
Watch the segment here: 



More Liberal Corruption...

A northern Virginia businessman was sentenced Friday to more than two years in prison for illegally funneling nearly $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's political campaigns in 2006 and 2008.

William Danielczyk, 51, of Oakton pleaded guilty in February to violating campaign-finance laws by reimbursing employees of his company, Galen Capital, and others who were recruited to attend fundraisers and make contributions Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns.

There are no allegations Clinton or her campaign acted improperly.

The sentence of 28 months was roughly half of the five-year maximum sought by prosecutors in U.S. District Court. Danielczyk's lawyers, meanwhile, argued that many similar violations of the campaign-finance laws had resulted only in probation.

In imposing his sentence, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris compared Danielczyk's case to defense lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti, who received 27 months for illegally funneling more than $380,000 to House members controlling the Pentagon's budget.

Arguing for a lighter sentence, defense lawyer Abbe Lowell said Danielczyk's case differed from more serious violations in part because Danielczyk did not seek any special favors in exchange for his fundraising efforts.

But prosecutor Eric Gibson disputed that, citing grand jury testimony that Danielczyk had told others he hoped to land an ambassadorship and saw fundraising as a means to achieve it.

Lowell also urged the judge to tread lightly given the fact that campaign-finance laws are in flux and courts are still sorting out the implications of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which lifted many restrictions on corporate spending in political elections. Indeed, for a brief time, Cacheris had tossed out some of the charges against Danielczyk, ruling that under Citizens United, the campaign finance law banning corporations like Galen from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional.

An appellate court later overruled Cacheris, saying Citizens United gives corporations a free hand to contribute to campaign activities by independent groups but not directly to candidates themselves.

At Friday's hearing, Danielczyk did not apologize for his conduct but said he was angry with himself.

"I've always tried to lead by example, and I obviously didn't do that here," he said.

The scheme was first exposed more than five years ago by The Wall Street Journal. At the time, Danielczyk lied and said he had not reimbursed people for making contributions. Prosecutor Eric Gibson said the lies to the media were just a small part of Danielczyk's efforts to hide his scheme, including falsely describing reimbursements to his straw donors as bonuses and "consulting fees" and swapping out a laptop computer with incriminating evidence that he was obliged to turn over to the FBI.

A co-defendant, former Galen executive Eugene Biagi, 78, was sentenced Friday to probation. Under his plea deal, prosecutors agreed to recommend no more than probation to the judge.

Biagi's lawyer, Todd Richman, said his client actually disliked Clinton and engaged in the scheme only because Danielczyk, his friend and employer, told him to.

"The chance that he would have engaged in this on his own is zero ... certainly not for Hillary Clinton," Richman said. 



Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt took over for the last hour of the "Howie Carr Show" to discuss his article on Breitbart "Blame The President For Benghazi." Hunt makes the case that no one but the President could have given the order to go in to protect American personell under attack at the Benghazi compound in September of last year.


RNC Submits FOIA for Benghazi Emails Between State Department and Obama's Re-Election Campaign

This is the way I see it. It was all about Obama's re election, and to Hell with the truth!

The Republican National Committee has submitted a Freedom of Information Request for emails between the State Department and President Obama's re-election campaign in an effort to get the truth about talking points developed to explain the 9/11 Benghazi terror attack. The FOIA requests copies of all emails and documents that include the words "Libya" and/or "Benghazi" between State Department employees and Obama's campaign staff between September 11 and November 7, 2012. This time period covers the 9/11 attack and the appearance of UN Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday shows when she blamed a YouTube video.
“Americans need to know whether the State Department had any contact with the staff of the president’s reelection campaign as talking points on Benghazi were drafted and edited. We certainly hope political considerations didn’t come into play when the administration decided what to tell the American people, but the administration’s changing answers certainly raise valid concerns that we don’t know the full story," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. Assuming there was no contact between the State Department and the campaign, this should be an easy request to fill."

Cruz: Obama Administration Does Not Respect the Bill of Rights

Good comments on link


Obamacare: Premium Spikes to Rock California's Individual Market

The indispensable Avik Roy, one of the handful of Righty healthcare works on the scene today, reports on what's in store for many Californians next year, thanks to the new healthcare law:
One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry abouthealth insurance “rate shock.”  Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

The premium jolt will be particularly acute for young and middle-aged people in the individual market.  Roy breaks it down in this handy chart

The red bar is the average cost of the five most affordable plans in California's individual market today, via eHealthInsurance.com.  Once Obamacare goes into effect, twenty-somethings' cheapest option (dark blue) will be roughly double what they are paying today.  Consumers in their early 40's have it even worse.  The current monthly average of the five least expensive options available to this group is $121.  Unlike the 20's crowd, these consumers won't have anything resembling a "bare bones" catastrophic plan on their menu; the cheapest selection is Obamacare's "bronze" level (light blue), which will increase their premiums by 116 percent.  When California projected its new rates last week, liberals were triumphant, latching on to the state exchange's headline-friendly analysis that the new post-Obamacare rates would range between 2 percent higher to 29 percent lower, compared to 2013 levels.  The Washington Examiner's Phil Klein advisesCalifornians to keep the champagne on ice:
California, essentially, is saying that the exchanges will give participants more benefits for their money so the cost of the new offerings should be compared to more comprehensive plans. But what if individuals don’t want more coverage? For many young and healthy individuals, insurance on the exchanges will be a much more costly option than what they have now. In 2012, the average individualinsurance plan cost Californians $177 per month, according to online insurance marketplace ehealthinsurance.com. Yet the report put out by Covered California lists the average “silver” plan on the exchange as costing individuals $321 per month. That’s an 80 percent increase — or even more for those who still have the freedom to go without insurance and currently pay $0 in premiums. That freedom will disappear come January.

They're cherry-picking data in order to force an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Here's a translation of their argument, in layman's terms: "Sure, your premiums may increase quite a bit, but your new Obamacare plan will be mandated to cover a lot more services -- so compared to the existing comprehensive plans you haven'tchosen to buy, you'll be paying less."  But the president's promise wasn't "you'll pay more to get more."  It was, you'll get more and your premiums will drop significantlyand the deficit will shrink, and...etc.  Bloomberg's Lanhee Chen exposes another element of California's sleight-of-hand:
The only way Covered California's experts arrive at their conclusion is to compare...next year’s individual premiums to this year’s small employer premiums.  They’re making this particular comparison, they explain, because they believe that the marketplace for individually purchased insurance will look like the marketplace for small employer-purchased insurance next year. For example, the state already requires insurers to issue policies to all comers in the small employer market. Premiums are therefore higher today for small employers than for individuals purchasing coverage on their own.  What this means, however, is that Covered California is creating for itself a very favorable and already higher baseline from which to compare next year’s individual health insurance premiums. That’s how they’re able to create the appearance that Obamacare’s reforms will lower individual premiums. To put it simply: Covered California is trying to make consumers think they’re getting more for less when, in fact, they’re just getting the same while paying more.

Yuval Levin summarizes: "The comparison offered in the California press release helps make it clear why that is: Obamacare’s new insurance rules. Those rules would certainly help some people—people with pre-existing conditions in the individual market will find it easier to buy coverage for instance—but they will also raise premium costs very significantly.
Obamacare’s defenders can certainly point to the former fact, but they cannot deny the latter one and insist the new California data show there will be no rate shock, as many tried to do over the past week."  He urges Obamacare's opponents to highlight market-based solutions that would help cover people with pre-existing conditions without inflicting premium rate shocks on everyone else.


Obamacare Reminder: Even If You Like Your Plan, You Can't Necessarily Keep It

Let's begin with a verbatim quote from President Obama from July of 2009, touting the legislative perfection that would be Obamacare:
“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.

This unambiguous, clearly-stated pledge was demonstrably false when it was first uttered and has remained so to this day.  The latest piece of evidence, via theAssociated Press (headline: "Like Your Healthcare Policy?  You May Be Losing It"):

Many people who buy their own health insurance could get surprises in the mail this fall: cancellation notices because their current policies aren't up to the basic standards of President Barack Obama's health care law. They, and some small businesses, will have to find replacement plans — and that has some state insurance officials worried about consumer confusion. Also, it doesn't seem to square with one of the president's best known promises about his health care overhaul: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan." ... The Obama administration did not respond directly to questions about the potential fallout from cancellation notices ... For the most part,state insurance commissioners are giving insurers the option of canceling existing plans or changing them to comply with new federal requirements.

"Canceling" and "changing" do not equal "keeping," which was the promise.  The CBO estimated last year that up to 20 million Americans could lose their current coverage under Obamacare.  Other projections peg the number at 35 million, or more.  With the media focused on the administration's myriad scandals, the president is gearing up for yet another public relations tour on behalf of the law that he never sold to the public, despite delivering dozens of speeches.  His new plan?  More speeches, natch, plus plenty of taxpayer-funded propaganda.  If your presidency were sagging beneath the weight of scandal, and your top legislative accomplishment remained enduringly unpopular with the public, to whom would you turn for help?  If your instant reply was "Nancy Pelosi," you're in luck.  Have fun with this, Democrats:
A document circulated to House Democrats by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — and obtained by BuzzFeed — offers some details of the timing of the health-care plan: Rates and details of plans will become public in September for the 34 states that haven’t put together their own plans. The goals, Pelosi writes in a “dear colleague” letter that begins the document, are “to educate our constituents about the new law, help to implement it, and strengthen the hands of those who have worked for this historic reform.”

Pelosi's guide to finally selling Obamacare runs 78 pages long, which sounds a bit unwieldy until you remember what they're trying to summarize (while editing out all the bad news).  But don't panic, Democrats.  Follow your super-popular leader's game plan, and everything should be fine. 


I wonder why Obama wants no Persecutor?? They say he handled the Problem, lets move along??? I Don't think so! I want to see one....Enough of this Crap of investigating themselves!  Remember, they knew Nothing!

White House Deputy Spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Air Force One on Thursday that the President doesn't see a need for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the questionable targeting practices of the IRS. The spokesman argued that the incoming IRS commissioner will be an "independent" observer in his initial 30 day review of the agency.

Earnest was asked about a new Quinnipiac poll stating 76 percent of Americans would like to see a special prosecutor investigate the alleged targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. Earnest was asked if the President is "looking at that option at all." "We're not," the Deputy Spokesman replied.
The White House Spokesman explained the incoming IRS commissioner, Danny Werfel, is an "outside" observer who will conduct and "independent" 30-day review as directed by the Treasury Secretary. "So I would actually make the case to you that we have a wide variety of outside, impartial, independent observers -- all of whom share the goal of getting to the bottom of what happened and making sure it didn't happen -- it doesn't happen again." Earnest concluded.
Read the transcript of the exchange below:
Q On the IRS -- there's a Quinnipiac poll out today saying that 76 percent of Americans would like to see a special prosecutor appointed to look into that, and I'm wondering if the President or the White House is looking at that option at all.
MR. EARNEST: We're not. And the reason for that simply is that there is a new IRS commissioner in place, Danny Werfel, who is a career civil servant, who represented -- who served in administrations led by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. He's conducting a 30-day review -- that was a review that was ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury at the direction of the President. That is an ongoing review that is taking place.
Our administration has already signaled our willingness to cooperate with congressional oversight in this matter. I know that there are a couple of administration officials that have already testified on this, and there are -- our cooperation in this endeavor is ongoing. And I also understand, separately from all that, that the Department of Justice has announced a criminal investigation into this matter.
So there are a lot of people looking at this from a lot of different perspectives. And we're confident that those who need to be held accountable for the wrongdoing that occurred there will be held accountable. And the President is committed to making sure that those steps are taken to make sure this doesn't happen again.
Q So there's not any interest in an outside, independent -- completely independent person to look at it?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I would actually make the case to you that there are -- we do have somebody who is coming from the outside, who is a career civil servant who has served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, coming into the IRS to take a look at this. We've got outside members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- who are taking a look at this. And we have, based on news reports, professional investigators, the Department of Justice, who are investigating this.
So I would actually make the case to you that we have a wide variety of outside, impartial, independent observers -- all of whom share the goal of getting to the bottom of what happened and making sure it didn't happen -- it doesn't happen again. And we'll cooperate with those efforts as necessary.


Vast Majority of Americans Want Special Prosecutor for IRS Scandal

In light of the IRS targeting of conservative groups, President Obama is perfectly content with allowing Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate what happened. The vast majority of Americans however, disagree and want a special prosecutorto look into inappropriate treatment of tea party and patriot groups.
Three-quarters of U.S. voters want a special prosecutor to investigate the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of Tea Party groups, according to a poll that showed a drop in President Barack Obama’s approval and trust ratings.

In the survey released today by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University, registered voters favored a special prosecutor by 76 percent to 17 percent. Those backing such a move included 63 percent of Democrats.

“There is overwhelming bipartisan support for an independent investigation into the IRS,” Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac polling institute, said in a news release.
Out of all the scandals the Obama administration finds itself embroiled in, Americans believe the IRS situation is the most important to address.
In the poll, 44 percent of voters said that investigating the IRS actions was the most important of the three matters, followed by Benghazi, 24 percent, and the search warrants for journalist records, 15 percent.
Meanwhile, despite the White House still pleading ignorance on IRS targeting of conservative groups, it turns out former IRS Commissioner David Shulman visited the White House a whopping 157 times during Obama's first term, more than any other cabinet member. Via the DC:
 photo ScreenShot2013-05-30at105348AM_zps1878681f.png

Thursday, May 30, 2013


I love this....More Liberal Stupidity!

Moses? Seriously? I am absolutely dumber for making the mistake of watching this double dipshit!
Michael Eric Dyson Dipshit
Holder is a worthless sack of crap , who not only needs to step down but needs his butt thrown in jail – along with Obama. They are both liars!
Thank God for Ted Cruz speaking truth to stupid…

Partners In Crime – Like IRS The EPA Now Targeting Conservative States

Once the cow turd is kicked over all kinds of creepers start squirming in the sunlight…
Obama EPA
The Daily Caller:
Attorneys general from a dozen Republican-led states say the Environmental Protection Agency has been dragging its feet since February on their fee waiver requests, adding to a pattern of the agency making it harder for conservatives to obtain government records.
Twelve states with Republican administrations sent a Freedom of Information Act request for records regarding EPA “sue and settle” negotiations with outside environmental groups in lawsuits. These suits led to the agency entering into consent decrees that forced more federal intervention into state environmental plans.
“Oklahoma and other states seek this information out of substantial concern with EPA’s practice because it directly results in minimizing the substantive role of the States in energy, land use and environmental regulatory programs in a manner that is contrary to the cooperative federalism structure set forth in federal law and the United StatesConstitution,” wrote Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt on behalf of the twelves states. “The EPA must be transparent about its actions.”

A Few More FB Post

Liberal Stupidity at its Finest

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

A Few more FB Post

GOP Rep. Gowdy: Nancy Pelosi 'mind-numbingly stupid,' recommends doctor visit

Others agree that Nancy is an Idiot!

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)

On Thursday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) lashed out at Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), calling her recent comments regarding Fast and Furious "mind-numbingly stupid," and suggested she "schedule an appointment" with a doctor.
On Thursday, Pelosi claimed that the contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder was part of a grand conspiracy to undermine his fight against voter suppression.
“This is no accident. It is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of the Republicans,” Pelosi said.
“It’s really beneath the office of a member of Congress to say something that outrageous, and the fact that she was once the speaker is mind-numbing,” Rep. Gowdy told Fox News' Greta van Susteren.
"I have heard a lot in my 16 years as a prosecutor. I couldn’t believe the words coming out of her mouth," he added.
"I don’t know what was wrong with her when she said that. But I would schedule an appointment with my doctor if she thinks that we are doing this to suppress votes this fall. That is mind-numbingly stupid," Gowdy said.
Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit reminded readers that "Pelosi also said Democrats brought down the deficit after they increased it by a trillion dollars."
"She’s either mind-numbingly stupid or a chronic liar, or both," Hoft wrote.
Gowdy also took the administration to task for invoking executive privilege at the last minute.
”If executive privilege were so sacred, they would have invoked it 10 months ago,” he said. “To wait 10 minutes before we start a markup? They still haven’t told us which documents are privileged.”
On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted along party lines to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over documents relating to Fast and Furious.
The whole House is set to vote on the contempt charge sometime next week.

Obama’s EPA Attempts To Ban Ammunition

A federal court on Thursday halted — at least for the time being — an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to ban all ammunition containing lead, much to the dismay of gun control groups hoping to use environmentalism to “make an end run around the Second Amendment” right of access to ammunition, according to officials from several organizations representing gun owners and manufacturers.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that it had dismissed a lawsuit brought by the anti-hunting Center for Biological Diversity and six other left-wing groups which demanded that President Barack Obama’s powerful EPA ban traditional ammunition containing lead components.
Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed CBD’s lawsuit, finding that CBD’s current petition was nothing more than an attempt to seek reconsideration of their previous petition, which the EPA had denied. Judge Sullivan also indicated that he would defer to EPA’s determination that the agency was not congressionally authorized to regulate lead-based ammunition, according to the Institute for Legislative Action of the NRA.
Traditional ammunition represents 95 percent of the U.S. market and is the staple ammunition for target shooters, hunters and law enforcement, with more than 10 billion rounds sold annually, according to officials with theNational Shooting Sports Foundation.
Last August, the NSSF had filed a motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit initiated by EPA attorneys at the behest of environmental and control activist groups.

MSNBC Ratings Collapse, Rachel Maddow Hits All-Time Low

Obama Propaganda Garbage!

MSNBC is essentially getting obliterated in the TV news market, losing roughly 20% of their viewers in the last 12 months.
Apparently, there’s only so much pure propaganda that the people will tolerate, given that MSNBC has long been considered almost part of the Obama administrationitself, given its extreme liberal bias.
Rachel Maddow is the supposed genius of the left’s TV “news” and opinion-making machine, and she experienced the lowest-rated month so far.
Averaging 539,000 viewers in primetime and 175,000 viewers in the adults 25-54 demographic, MSNBC suffered double-digit drops from last May — down a respective 20 and 19 percent. Losses were less substantial in total day, down 10 percent to an average 346,000 viewers and down 7 percent to 115,000 adults 25-54, while all other nets pulled growth in multiple categories.
Things have gotten so bad for Rachel Maddow, that even the incredibly less popular Pierce Morgan has taken to mocking here, News Buster reports:
When the news first broke at the Hollywood Reporter Wednesday, CNN’s Piers Morgan taunted MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Twitter.

 When Pierce Morgan makes fun of your ratings, that’s a pretty bad sign, becausePierce Morgan’s ratings have been collapsing as well. With any luck, these government-worshiping propagandists will keep their downward spiral.
Turns out their decision to defend him all these years will cost them everything. Good. It should.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

A Few more Facebook Post

Up to 75% Could Be Hit by Obamacare Tax Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/cadillac-tax-obamacare-plans/2013/05/27/id/506527#ixzz2UdagZwkD Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

The so-called "Cadillac Tax" facing employers who offer premium healthcare plans to their workers already is affecting employees, even though it doesn't kick in until 2018.

Employers say they have to get started bringing down costs now, The New York Times reports, so employees who are used to $20 co-pays at the doctor's office and $500 deductibles are learning a new reality. Many now are looking at deductibles as high as $6,000 for families.

That's exactly how Obamacare planners designed it, the Times story says. The intent of what is officially known as the Affordable Care Act all along was to get companies to drop plans that protect workers from the high cost of healthcare, which can lead to unnecessary tests and procedures. 

"The consumer should continue to expect that their plan is going to be more expensive, and they will have less benefits," Cynthia Weidner of the benefits consultant HighRoads told the Times. 

Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll 

Still, the tax is one of the most controversial parts of the healthcare law. It imposes a 40 percent tax on the portion of a health plan's cost that exceeds $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family. That cost includes what both the employer and employee pay.

Some employees are feeling the pinch already. The Times talked to a nursing assistant who had to drop out of school and get extra jobs to pay for medicine for her husband, who has cystic fibrosis. 

"My husband didn’t choose to be born this way," said Abbey Bruce.

“The reality is it is going to hit more and more people over time, at least as currently written in law, ” said Bradley Herring, a health economist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 

Herring estimated that as many as 75 percent of plans could be affected by the tax over the next decade — unless employers manage to significantly rein in their costs. 

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/cadillac-tax-obamacare-plans/2013/05/27/id/506527#ixzz2UdajutBC
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!