Tag: Sign

Your Daley Gator Anti-Leftist Picture O’ The Day


…………………

.
H/T Gateway Pundit

.

Obama State Department Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Nuke Deal, And It’s Not Legally Binding

State Dept Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Iran Deal And It’s Not Legally Binding – Right Scoop

Just when you think Obama’s Iran deal couldn’t get any worse, his own State Dept. reveals that Iran didn’t sign the deal nor is it ‘legally binding’. It’s just a set of ‘political commitments’ or something:
.

NRO – President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement.

Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

“The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.

.
Of course we couldn’t trust Iran in the first place, but for Obama, who touted this deal as the only way to keep Iran from getting nukes, to not even get their signatures attesting to their ‘commitment’ to this so-called deal seems ludicrous. And for his State Department to then say it’s not legally binding? Just what assurances did Obama think he was getting from the Iranians to even make the guarantees he made and his numerous statements defending this deal?

Here’s the letter obtained by the NRO:

.

.

.

.

200 Retired Generals And Admirals Sign Letter Urging Congress To Reject Insane Iran Nuclear Deal

200 Ex-Generals Write Congress: Reject Nuke Deal – WorldNetDaily

.

.
An estimated 200 retired generals and admirals put pen to paper and sent a letter to Congress to advise them to reject the nuclear deal pressed by President Obama, saying the world will become a more dangerous place if it’s approved.

“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the letter stated.

It was addressed to House Majority Leader John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The writers say the “agreement as constructed does not ‘cut off every pathway’ for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” an apparent reference to the terminology President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry used to tout the benefits of the deal.

“To the contrary,” it continues, “it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding the deal.”

The generals and admirals say the agreement will let Iran enrich uranium, develop centrifuges and keep up work on its heavy-water plutonium reactor at Arak.

And also of concern, they write: “The agreement is unverifiable. Under the terms of the [agreement] and a secret side deal (to which the United States is not privy), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be responsible for inspectiOns under such severe limitations as to prEvent them from reliably detecting Iranian cheating.”

The letter references the widely reported 24-day delay that was given Iran to keep out inspectors, under the terms of the forged deal. And it also mentions the facet of the agreement that “requires inspectors to inform Iran in writing as to the basis for its concerns about an undeclared site,” and says such allowances are inappropriate and dangerous.

“While failing to assure prevention of Iran’s nuclear weapons development capabilities, the agreement provides by some estimated $150 billion… or more to Iran in the form of sanctions relief,” the letter states.

And their conclusions?

“As military officers, we find it unconscionable that such a windfall could be given to a regime that even the Obama administration has acknowledged will use a portion of such funds to continue to support terrorism in Israel, throughout the Middle East and globally,” they wrote, summarizing the agreement is a danger to the world.

“Accordingly, we urge the Congress to reject this defective accord,” the letter wraps.

Among the signers: Admiral David Architzel, U.S. Navy, retired; Admiral Stanley Arthur, U.S. Navy, retired; General Alfred Hansen, U.S. Air Force, retired; Admiral James Hoggs, U.S. Navy, retired; and General Ronald Yates, U.S. Air Force, retired.

.

.

*VIDEO* Elderly Veteran Gang-Tackled During Obama VFW Speech For Holding Benghazi Sign


.

.

He’s Back! Philadelphia Eagles To Sign Tim Tebow

Glazer: Eagles To sign Tebow In Latest Move Of Frenzied Offseason – Fox Sports

.

.
Tim Tebow is back in the NFL. And Chip Kelly’s offseason just got juicier.

The Philadelphia Eagles plan to bring in quarterback Tim Tebow and sign him Monday as they begin their offseason program, FOX Sports NFL insider Jay Glazer reports. Multiple outlets later confirmed the report.

The Eagles are looking for a fourth quarterback for their offseason program. After spending time with Tebow’s quarterbacks coach Tom House, the Eagles are convinced he’s improved a lot, Glazer reports.

Tebow, who hasn’t played in an NFL regular season game since 2012, was brought in for a workout for the Eagles last month.

“I’ve always been a fan of Tim,” Kelly told NFL Network last month. “We bring in a lot of players for private workouts, it’s just he’s the one that everyone keeps talking about. We brought in Terrelle Pryor for a workout and Thad Lewis in for a workout. When players are available for you to work them out, it’s the same thing of going to the veteran combine or going to the super regional combine.

“It’s getting an exposure to a player so that when you have to make a decision and say, ‘Hey, what are we going to do now?’ you say, ‘I don’t know anything about these players. Let’s bring them in and work them out,’ and it may be too late at that point in time. So all we’re doing is just doing our homework.”

The Eagles traded for quarterback Sam Bradford earlier this offseason and signed Mark Sanchez to an extension. Matt Barkley currently sits third on the depth chart.

Tebow hasn’t played in the NFL since he was with the New York Jets in 2012. He was released by the New England Patriots before the 2013 season and spent last year working in television as an analyst for the SEC Network and ESPN.

Despite being out of the league, the 27-year-old Tebow remained one of the most popular players around. He has a legion of fans who follow him because of his strong Christian beliefs.

The former Heisman Trophy winner led Florida to two national titles and was a first-round pick by Denver in 2010. He started 16 games during two seasons with the Broncos, including a playoff victory over Pittsburgh in January 2012. Tebow was traded to the Jets after Denver signed Peyton Manning.

Tebow had some success in Denver, but his inaccurate passing and lack of pocket presence was an issue. His strength has been running the ball or improvising. Tebow has completed just 47.9 percent of his passes for 2,422 yards, 17 touchdowns and nine interceptions. He has 989 yards rushing, a 5.0 average yards per carry and 12 TDs.

.

.

Hillary’s Neighbor Puts ‘For Sale’ Sign On Lawn Offering “Used Email Server, Clean Hard Drive”

Chappaqua Resident Puts ‘For Sale’ Sign On Fake Email Server Near Hillary Clinton’s Home – New York Daily News

.

.
A fellow Chappaqua resident went to some trouble Wednesday to let Hillary Clinton know he thought her her excuse for using personal email at the State Department was a joke.

Gary Murphy, 44, staged a stunt, placing a computer hard drive near Clinton’s Westchester home with a for-sale sign reading, “Used Email Server, Clean Hard Drive, 15 Old House Ln. – See Bill.”

“I guess I wasn’t satisfied with the answers she gave,” Murphy, who lives in Chappaqua and owns a house-cleaning business, said.

.

.
He conceded he’s a registered Republican, but insisted his joke wasn’t motivated by partisan politics. “I have equal disgust for both parties for the most part,” he said.

.

.

Leftist Bigots In Florida ‘Whiteface’ Black Republican Congressional Candidate’s Campaign Sign

Black GOP Candidate’s Campaign Photograph Vandalized With Whiteface Paint – Weasel Zippers

.

.
If only she was a Democrat then MSNBC would have a week’s worth of programming.

Via NRO:

A Florida Republican congressional candidate’s campaign sign was vandalized with whiteface paint last week in a district with overwhelmingly Democratic voter registration. The attack follows a string of bias incidents against black Republicans.

Glo Smith, who reports that she has also had a number of signs stolen, tells National Review Online she became aware of the racist defacement of an eight-foot-by-four-foot sign Tuesday. The sign was situated on private property in view of Interstate 10 in Jacksonville. The vandal sprayed white paint over the face of Smith, who is African-American. The paint job appears to be carefully done and leaves the eyes untouched, creating a very creepy effect.

Keep reading

.

.

*VIDEO* What Difference Does It Make? Jason Mattera Asks Hitlery To Sign Copy Of Her Book For Chris Stevens


.
H/T Weasel Zippers

.

.

Sign The White House Petition To Overturn “Gun Free Zone” Directive On Military Bases

Let Our Military Personnel Be Able To Defend Themselves: Petition Underway To Overturn “Gun Free Zone” Rule On Military Bases – Weasel Zippers

.
petition

.
Obama gave a short speech after the Fort Hood shooting yesterday, speaking about the military at Fort Hood. ‘They serve with valor, they serve with distinction and when they’re at their home base, they need to feel safe,’ Obama said.

Yet, it is the very rules that he enforces that leave the military unsafe. Due to military directive, military bases are “gun free zones” where regular military are not allowed to carry firearms. This leaves them open to attack and unable to defend themselves. In recent years, we have seen attacks and attempted attacks on military bases: the first Fort Hood shooting on November 5, 2009, by terrorist Nidal Hassan, the shooting at the Navy Yard in September 2013, and this latest shooting at Fort Hood. In May of 2007 the FBI arrested six radicalized Islamist men who were plotting to attack Fort Dix. Because bases are gun free zones, terrorists or those meaning to do harm, know they have at least several minutes to kill people before police can arrive to stop them.

There are actually multiple petitions that people have started, but this is the one that seems to have the most signatures so far.

Our hearts are saddened to learn of yet another shooting on a military installation in the United States. Yet again, service members who train regularly to responsibly handle firearms were murdered on base and were unable to defend themselves.

Concealed carry policies provide not only an appropriate means for self defense against violence, but also a proven deterrent. Our military installations have become “soft” targets for those who would harm our military members. Lawful, concealed carry by responsible service members could have prevented or lessened the severity of these incidents.

The DoD should set forth CCW regulations permitting service members in good standing who have received firearms training to carry concealed firearms on DoD installations.

A petition last year asked the White House to make itself “gun free” since it seems to believe that is the best way to protect people. The White House rejected that petition, exposing their fundamental hypocrisy. Apparently, the White House believes its occupants are entitled to protection that children and our military are not.

.
………………….

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles/video:

.
End ‘Victimization Zones’ On Military Bases – Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham

When I started Open Carry Texas last year, my focus was on educating the public about the benefits of an armed society. I hear all the time from proponents of gun control that “in this day and age” it’s so important to restrict access to firearms to prevent people from using them to commit evil atrocities. The problem with this philosophy is that gun control laws only victimize law abiding citizens by making them defenseless.

By definition, criminals don’t obey laws, no matter how altruistic and holistic those laws may be.

For years on my personal blog, A Soldier’s Perspective, I spoke out against so-called gun-free zones. My first awareness about the pitfalls of these victimization zones, as I call them, came in 1991. Originally hailing from Temple, Texas, the Luby’s shooting hit home for me. I was only in high school at the time, but recognizing that a member of my family could have been in that restaurant on Oct. 16, 1991, I was acutely aware of the impact that shooting had on my stance on gun control.

Then, in 1993, Army Regulation 190-14 (Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties) was updated with new rules on what, when and how soldiers could carry firearms on military installations. The policy banned all manner of carry except for “DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties.”

It became the Army’s policy that “the authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.” Naturally, this policy was implemented prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

Since that Army policy went into effect and other services followed suit there have been nearly two dozen shootings at military installations. I vividly remember shortly after arriving to my new unit at Fort Stewart, Ga., when Private First Class Craig Jones walked into the orderly room of his unit and shot Sergeant Michael Santiago in the chest and arm, killing him. This was in March 2002.

In September 2008, a soldier at Fort Hood shot and killed his lieutenant before committing suicide. Specialist Armano Baca shot Sgt. Ryan Schlack in July 2009 on the same base. Since guns were banned on military installations, there have been shootings on Fort Drum, Fort Carson, Fort Bragg, Fort Knox and many other military installations!

In November 2009, I was out-processing Redstone Arsenal, Ala., en route to my new assignment on Fort Hood, Texas. At the same time, Army Maj. Nidal Hassan walked into a deployment center on Fort Hood and opened fire on his fellow soldiers, killing 13 and injuring 30 others.

And all of these shootings happened in gun-free zones. Every single one of these shootings happened at a place where the very people trained to deal with armed attackers were defenseless against an armed attacker.

No one can say for certain these incidents would disappear were soldiers allowed to carry personal firearms. However, it can be said with a certainty that any future tragedy will be executed unopposed as long as soldiers are not at least given the opportunity to defend themselves. There’s a saying that it’s better to have a gun and not need it, than not have a gun and need it.

After every one of these tragedies, we as a nation wring our collective hands trying to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent the next shooting. And each time, the simple idea of allowing troops to carry concealed firearms never seems to cross our minds. Why not?

I believe that one reason we are hesitant to allow troops to carry in uniform is because we think arming soldiers will lead to more such shootings. Many people said the same thing about Texas when we were debating the concealed handgun law. Critics said there would be blood in the streets. But, this isn’t backed up by logic, fact, or even experience.

Right this second, virtually every soldier in Afghanistan is carrying a loaded weapon, whether it be a pistol or a rifle. At the very least, they are carrying an unloaded weapon with ammunition readily available and at their disposal. No one can honestly say that being deployed is less stressful than being back home in a garrison environment. Yet, in spite of the prevalence of firearms in the hands of nearly every single troop in a stressful combat environment, the existence of fratricide is practically non-existent.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to suggest that soldiers are more or less capable of managing their emotions with a firearm in one environment over another. The fact remains that in spite of the 1993 regulation and policy, service members are carrying guns onto military installations and killing unarmed victims; victims that may have had a chance to live if they were permitted an opportunity to defend themselves. Even when not carrying guns on military installations, many service members are carrying them off base without feeling the urge to shoot the first person that looks at them cross-eyed.

How many more of my brothers and sisters must die before we, as a nation, wake up and put an end to these ironically titled “gun-free zones”? How many more examples of innocent, unarmed citizens being slaughtered by men with evil intent must we endure? Why do we disarm the very people who are the most well-trained in the use of firearms in defensive and offensive situations?

I am not arguing that the military simply abolish its policy altogether and just allow everyone and their mother to carry a firearm onto a military installation – though I don’t see why not. After all, there is a constitutional amendment that recognizes that right. But, I’ve never been one to identify a problem without a solution.

The military should initiate a policy that, at a minimum, allows soldiers with concealed handgun licenses to carry their firearms on them. The Department of Defense could even institute its own concealed handgun licensing requirement so at the very least it knows which soldiers are armed and whether they are qualified. To combat the constant stream of motorcycle deaths, the Army instituted a program that requires soldiers to be trained and certified prior to riding a motorcycle onto a military installation.

Why not train and certify soldiers in order to permit them to carry a concealed handgun on post? Those who are trained and certified would be required to renew their certifications annually or whenever they move to another military installation. Guns brought onto military installations are already registered, so make that another aspect of the licensing requirement. If a soldier wants to carry a different handgun, he/she must be re-certified with the new handgun they wish to carry.

Whatever we do, it’s obvious that what we are currently doing doesn’t work. It’s not working in gun-free shopping centers; it’s not working in gun-free schools; it’s not working in gun-free cities; and it doesn’t work in gun-free military installations.

In December 2012, NRA Executive Director Wayne Lapierre, eloquently stated: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or a minute away?”

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Gun owners who jump through the hoops to become licensed gun owners are even less likely to commit crimes. In Texas, only .18 percent of gun owners have committed ANY crime at all. Hardly any of those crimes were committed with a gun. The time to end gun free zones is now, no matter where they exist.

C.J. Grisham is president and founder of Open Carry Texas, a Texas-based organization dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms and has over 19 years of active military service. He has been writing about gun rights on his blog, A Soldier’s Perspective, since 2005. The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army or any branch of the government.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.
Petition To Allow Military Personnel To Carry Concealed Weapons – Liberty Federation

Petition To: All Members of Congress & President Obama

.
…………

.
Military service members must be allowed to carry concealed firearms on all Federal and State installations. Had concealed carry been permitted, service members could have potentially stopped the shooters at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Yard. We must stop denying our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines the right and ability to defend themselves when targeted in mass shooting events.

We demand that you immediately pass legislation that allows for military service members the right to carry concealed weapons on all Federal and State facilities where they are either based or currently assigned.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Global Warming Nutbags Sign Petition To Lower The Temperature Of The Sun


.
H/T Defy The Narrative

.

Over 500 Economists Sign Open Letter To Obama Opposing Increase In Minimum Wage

500+ Economists Sign Open Letter To Obama Opposing Minimum Wage Increase – Independent Journal Review

More than 500 economists, including three Nobel laureates and several members of past administrations, have signed an open letter to the White House and Congress urging them to reject a federal minimum wage increase.

.
…………

.
They warned that hiking the minimum wage would cause economic damage:

“One of the serious consequences of raising the minimum wage is that business owners saddled with a higher cost of labor will need to cut costs, or pass the increase to their consumers in order to make ends meet. Many of the businesses that pay their workers minimum wage operate on extremely tight profit margins, with any increase in the cost of labor threatening this delicate balance.”

For some reason, this has always been a hard concept for liberals to grasp. Whether it’s an increase in taxes, cost of materials or cost of labor, businesses will always – always — pass those increased costs along to the consumer; they always have, they always will. It’s called capitalism.

The economists cited the recent bipartisan Congressional Budget Office report which found that increasing the minimum wage would lead to job loss.

“The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) most recent report underscores the damage that a federal minimum wage increase would have. According to CBO, raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would cost the economy 500,000 jobs by 2016.

Many of these jobs are held by entry-level workers with limited experience or vocational skills, the very employees meant to be helped.”

And therein lies the irony; while Obama trotting around the country espousing the virtue of raising the minimum wage may sound good to some, not only will many of those minimum wage employees be laid off; many more won’t be hired in the first place.

Obama and the Democrats fully understand this concept: it doesn’t really matter as long as they win the PR battle because Democrat voters have shown time and time again they don’t keep score; they never do. Liberalism has not proven to be about results. Emotion and intent are all that seem matter to the left.

How else can one explain the fact that 50 years and trillions of dollars after Lyndon Johnson launched the “War on Poverty,” urban Americans are no better off today, yet continue to overwhelmingly vote Democrat?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Feminist Studies Professor Steals Anti-Abortion Sign Then Assaults 16-Year-Old Girl Who Made It (Video)

Here’s Video Of The Feminist Studies Prof Facing Assault Charges For Sttacking 16-Year-Old Abortion Foe – Daily Caller

.

.
A video clip has surfaced of the University of California, Santa Barbara professor who appears to have stolen a graphic anti-abortion sign from two abortion protesters and then assaulted one of the protesters earlier this month.

The professor is Mireille Miller-Young. She is an associate professor in the feminist studies department who specializes in queer theory, black film and pornography.

The abortion protesters are Thrin Short, 16, and her sister 21-year-old sister, Joan. They are members of a Riverside, Calif.-based pro-life group called Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.

Miller-Young is now facing assault charges as a result of her actions, reports The Daily Nexus, the UC Santa Barbara student newspaper.

The scene went down on Tuesday, March 4. The Short sisters were standing in a designated “free speech zone” on the UC Santa Barbara campus with at least one large, very gruesome poster depicting aborted fetuses.

Thrin Short told Fox News that Miller-Young approached her and her sister, who had already been arguing with a gaggle of angry counter-protesters. She said Miller-Young eventually became enraged, filched the sign and waddled away.

“Before she grabbed the sign, she was mocking me and talking over me in front of the students, saying that she was twice as old as me and had three degrees, so they should listen to her and not me,” Thrin Short told Fox News via email. “Then she started the chant with the students about ‘tear down the sign.’ When that died out, she grabbed the sign.”

The cellphone video clip appears to start at roughly this point. It shows Miller-Young and two women sauntering away with a large, homemade anti-abortion billboard.

“She’s a professor and she steals signs,” says one of the Short sisters.

“Don’t you know you are stealing?” asks another unseen female – presumably the other sister.

“I may be a thief but you’re terrorists,” Miller-Young responds.

Miller-Young and the two sign-carrying women then disappear into a building. The protesting sisters briefly carry on an argument with a still-loitering abortion advocate.

The sisters then head into the building. One of them then calls campus police. The other one continues filming.

“Try and stop us,” Miller-Young turns around and taunts.

A short time later, Miller-Young attempts to block access to an elevator and, at one point, lunges toward the sisters.

Someone keeps screaming, “Don’t touch me!” It’s not clear whose voice it is, though it appears to come from Thrin Short.

Short described the chaotic scene to Fox News, charging that Miller-Young assaulted her repeatedly, causing scratches on both of her wrists.

“I explained how I had been trying to keep the elevator door open with my foot, because I thought the police would be there any second, and that’s when she pushed and grabbed me,” Short explained. “She then got off the elevator and tried to pull me away from the elevator doors so the others could get away with the sign.”

Bitter yelling ensues in the video. The thieves successfully get the elevator door to close and the clip fades to black.

University officials are staying completely mum about the alleged assault by the feminist studies professor, calling Miller-Young’s actions a personnel matter.

Kristina Garza, a spokeswoman for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, noted the high irony of the incident.

“The professor is a feminist studies professor and her specialty is pornography, and she did commit an act of violence against another woman. So, the irony there to us is rather great,” Garza told Fox News.

“If she isn’t prosecuted, wouldn’t anyone else think they could do the same thing and get away with it?” Thrin Short added. “The assault on me was part of the whole package of her deciding that she was above the law and could do whatever she liked to us.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Your Daley Gator ObamaCare News Update – 10/25/13 (Videos)

10 Senate Democrats Sign Shaheen Letter Pushing For Open Enrollment Extension – Washington Post

Ten Senate Democrats have signed on to a letter crafted by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urging the Obama administration to extend the open enrollment period for the recently launched health-care exchanges.

.

Shaheen called for the extension this week in light of myriad problems with the HealthCare.gov Web site.

As of now, Americans are required to obtain health insurance by March 31 or will face a penalty under the individual mandate. Some have suggested the penalty could be delayed, given the problems with the Web site might prevent people who otherwise want insurance from obtaining it.

The White House on Wednesday announced it would give Americans six weeks longer than previously thought – until March 31 – to enroll before facing a penalty, but also said the change had nothing to do with the Web site problems.

“Extending this period will give consumers critical time in which to become familiar with the website and choose a plan that is best for them,” the letter states. “Individuals should not be penalized for lack of coverage if they are unable to purchase health insurance due to technical problems.”

The letter doesn’t state how long the senators would like to extend open enrollment, only that it should be beyond March 31. One of the signers, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), called for a two-month delay in remarks on Thursday. Separately, another Democratic senator, Joe Manchin (W.Va.), has called for a one-year delay in the individual mandate.

The signatories to the letter are Shaheen and Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Hagan (D-N.C.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).

Begich, Pryor, Landrieu and Hagan are all top GOP targets in red states in 2014, and Bennet is likely to be targeted in 2016. (Shaheen and Mark Udall face reelection in swing states in 2014 but aren’t considered among Republicans’ top targets.)

Feinstein stands out as a long-time liberal senator from California. Tom Udall is considered largely safe for reelection in New Mexico next year and Heinrich was just elected in 2012 in the same state.

Here’s the text of Shaheen’s letter:

Dear Secretary Sebelius:

When fully implemented, the Affordable Care Act represents a bold step forward in reforming our nation’s health care system. It has the potential to improve the quality of care we all receive and provides the opportunity for millions of Americans to purchase quality, affordable health insurance.

The newly created federal and state health insurance marketplaces are intended to allow consumers the opportunity to compare health insurance options and find a plan that fits their needs and their budgets. For three years, we have been eagerly waiting for the launch of these marketplaces. However, now that the marketplaces are open, we have become discouraged and frustrated with the problems and interactions that are occurring with the Affordable Care Act’s federally-administered website, healthcare.gov.

As long as these substantial technology glitches persist, we are losing valuable time to educate and enroll people in insurance plans. Our constituents are frustrated, and we fear that the longer the website is not functional, opportunities for people to log on, learn about their insurance choices, and enroll will be lost.

Given the existing problems with healthcare.gov and other state-run marketplace websites that depend on the federally-administered website, we urge you to consider extending open enrollment beyond the current end date of March 31, 2014. Extending this period will give consumers critical time in which to become familiar with the website and choose a plan that is best for them. Individuals should not be penalized for lack of coverage if they are unable to purchase health insurance due to technical problems.

The Affordable Care Act has already had a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans; seniors are now paying less for their prescription drugs, critical preventive care services are available for free and important work is being done to improve the quality of care we receive. Americans will now have the opportunity to receive tax credits to purchase quality health insurance, and starting in January 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny health coverage because of a pre-existing condition or drop coverage if someone is sick.

We appreciate your efforts to fully implement this law and look forward to working with you to accomplish that goal. Thank you for considering our requests to extend the open enrollment period if the healthcare.gov substantial technology glitches continue.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Think Tank: Health Insurance Premiums Will Almost Double In Wisconsin – National Review

Health-care premiums in Wisconsin will almost double under Obamacare, compared with their current rates, according to a report from the MacIver Institute.

The state’s free-market think tank figured the average premiums of the insurance plans the Obamacare exchange offers for several categories of Wisconsinites: 27-year-olds, 50-year-olds, and a family of four from data found on a federal database. The institute then compared those rates with the average premiums on the private market, using figures from eHealthInsurance.com.

MacIver found that rates will jump significantly, especially for the young: A 27-year-old will see premiums more than double in one county in 2014, and see his rates go up by 93.6 percent in Madison, 91.2 percent in Milwaukee, and 72.6 percent in Eau Claire.

Fifty-year-olds will be paying more overall, too, but their premiums won’t go up quite as much, jumping by about half. Families will see their premiums rise at similar rates to young people: A family of four will see a spike of 97.2 percent in Brown County, and increases of just below 90 percent in Milwaukee and Dane counties.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.

Sebelius: I Don’t Work For ‘The People’ Calling For My Resignation – Townhall

Late Monday evening after visiting an Obamacare call center in Arizona, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a brief press conference during which she was peppered with questions. One reporter in particular asked Sebelius how she feels about those calling for her resignation. Sebelius responded by saying she “doesn’t work for them” and stressed that nobody has been fired.

“The majority of people calling for me to resign I would say are people who I don’t work for and who do not want this program to work in the first place. I have had frequent conversations with the president and I have committed to him that my role is to get the program up and running and we will do just that,” she said.

.

.
Apparently Sebelius thinks she only works for, and answers to, Barack Obama.

Nearly three dozen Republicans sent a letter to President Obama earlier this week demanding he fire Sebelius. Democrats have stated that “someone” should lose their job over the Obamacare website roll out.

An online (unscientific) CNBC poll shows 85 percent of people think Sebelius should be fired.

.
…………………

According to a Fox News poll, 60 percent of people think Obamacare implementation is a “joke.” Also as a reminder, Obamacare is still extremely unpopular among “the people” Sebelius claims she doesn’t work for.

A majority continues to dislike President Obama’s signature achievement: 51 percent of voters use negative terms to describe the health care law, saying it is either “a step backward” or “disastrous.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Obamacare Hotline Operator Fired For Taking Call From Sean Hannity… Here’s How The Host Is Making It Right – The Blaze

Earline Davis, the Obamacare hotline operator who took a call from conservative radio host Sean Hannity on Monday, has apparently been fired over the conversation.

Because his decision to call the operator technically led to her firing, Hannity generously offered the mother of two a year’s tax-free salary of $26,000 and also vowed to help find her a new job.

“Earline did NOTHING wrong, she was kind, polite, helpful, honest and extremely patient,” Hannity told TheBlaze via email. “The president said we should call, and I did, and Earline did what she was hired to do. How sad she got fired and Kathleen Sebelius still has her job!”

Davis joined Hanniy on the radio again on Thursday afternoon, this time to discuss the details of her termination.

The morning after speaking with Hannity on the air, Davis was led into an HR meeting and told she would be let go because “contact with the media is not allowed.”

However, the mother told Hannity that she was not made aware of the rule during her initial operator training.

“I was just out here trying to help everybody,” Davis added.

Hannity then apologized for the entire situation and told her, “I don’t want you to have to pay a price just for taking our call… So I want to help you out here.”

After talking to his accountant, Hannity discovered he can “legally gift” Davis a tax-free sum – $13,000 for her and $13,000 for one of her kids. The gift covers what would have been her full-time annual salary.

“I want to try and get you a new job,” Hannity continued. “I’m sure you want to get back to a normal routine.”

Listen to the entire segment below:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
How To Opt Out Of ObamaCare Without Paying The Fine – Big Government

Less than two-hours ago, I submitted a revised W-4 form to our payroll department. My goal is to avoid being in a position where at the end of next year I am owed a refund from the federal government. As an act of civil disobedience, I am refusing to purchase health insurance. This means that I am subject to a tax/fine of 1% of my income (2% the following year, 2.5% thereafter). But the beautiful thing is that unless I am owed a tax refund, the government will never get any of that money.

My decision to not purchase health insurance is a decision a lot of people – possibly millions – are going to make, either out of protest, or once the ObamaCare site is up and running and they finally get a look at the increased cost of their monthly premiums under the Orwellian-named Affordable Care Act. Purely by coincidence, during his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh went into great detail about all of this:

Anyway, [my accountant] said to me that, according to the law, the only way that the government can collect the fine or penalty for you not buying insurance is if you are owed a tax refund. If you do not owe a tax refund, they cannot go into your bank account or anywhere else and get that money. Now, the sad thing is that most people file their taxes to get a refund ’cause they think they’re screwing the government, and they’re not…

Therefore, the only way that they can collect the penalty or the fine is by taking money from your refund. If you are not owed a refund, they cannot get money from you. They can’t issue a lien. They can’t garnish your wages. They can’t use any of the normal procedures available to them if you owe them money, even though the Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. So for those of us – I mean, folks, I’m in fat city. I’m in fat city because I always structure to where I owe money. Well, not entirely. There have been years. But if you structure your taxes so that you do not get a refund, you do not have to buy insurance and you do not have to pay a fine ’cause they can’t collect it from you if you don’t have a refund due.

And that is just another nail in the coffin of Obamacare imploding on itself.

Limbaugh also points out that in order for ObamaCare to succeed, the program needs to coerce a few million young, healthy suckers into paying for something they do not need. Like me (a healthy 47-year-old), all we want and need is a catastrophic plan in case the unthinkable happens. But Obama has outlawed affordable catastrophic plans and is using the mandate/fine/tax as a way to force us into paying for services like maternity, vision, dental, mental health, and drug and alcohol treatment.

According to the CBO, up to 20 million people could lose their health insurance because the plan they are currently happy with (and Obama repeatedly promised they could keep) has been made illegal under ObamaCare. There is little doubt that these ObamaCare victims are going to face higher premium costs that they might not be able to afford, or just don’t think are worth the potential of a 50% to 150% premium increase with a higher deductible.

For those of you who – for whatever reason – will not be buying health insurance next year, remember that you legally do not have to pay that fine if you legally make sure that at the end of the year you are not owed a refund from the federal government.

Fight the Power.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Figures. Obamacare’s Hispanic Website Features Asians, Not Hispanics – Gateway Pundit

Asians, Hispanics… They all look alike to the O-Care website designers.

The Obamacare Hispanic website features Asians – not Hispanics.

.

The Hispanic website was inoperative all month.

It looks like they finally got it going, featuring Asians.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Obamacare Website Disqualifies Enrollees: You’re In Jail – WorldNetDaily

Are you in jail and didn’t know it?

Don’t worry. Obamacare will tell you.

That’s the “circumstance” for a commenter to a government website taking responses to the problems with the failing Healthcare.gov website, which has been unable to provide reasonable access for Americans.

“Website said my wife and I were ineligible due to current incarceration,” wrote Fred in an acknowledgement by the left-leaning ProPublica of the website problems. “We have never been arrested in our lives, both 63!!!!!!!!!!!”

Charles Ornstein, in the ProPublica report, documented some of the responses on the federal site collecting comments.

“The Obama administration has not always been transparent about Healthcare.gov: A case in point is how HHS has withheld the number of people who have been able to successfully enroll. But in this instance, the administration allowed comments to the blog post to be seen by all.”

Ornstein wrote that the feedback largely has been negative.

“While some comments root for the site’s failure, many are from people who’ve tried to use the site without success,” his report said. “Some pose specific questions; others voice general frustrations. Because their identities and contact information isn’t listed (for understandable reasons), there was no way to verify their stories.”

Besides the couple told by Healthcare.gov that they were in jail, Joanna noted that the system was telling her that her daughter was added twice. So she now lists two daughters with the same name and Social Security number, and no deleting was allowed.

Also, she added, “I choose that my husband is the father of our daughter and that my daughter is a dependant (sic) to me and my husband. What it actually shows though is that my daughter is a stepdaughter to her father and that my daughter is now both my husband and I’s parent (sic).”

Rhonda added that she could sign in, but was told her identity “has been compromised.”

Another, Francine, said she was told she could only submit one application per state, and now the system has her blocked.

The comment collection site optimistically labeled “Doing Better: Making Improvements to Healthcare.gov,” says that 19 million visits to the site show that “the American people are looking for quality, affordable health coverage, and want to find it online.”

They’re apparently not finding, however.

“Unfortunately, the experience on Healthcare.gov has been frustrating for many… some have had trouble creating accounts and logging in to the site, while others have received confusing error messages, or had to wait for slow page loads or forms that failed to respond in a timely fashion,” the government admits.

New code has been introduced to fix some problems, but “we know there’s still more work to be done,” the site explains.

The stories were not encouraging.

Julie, an insurance agent, reported: “My client and I spent three hours alone today trying to get her registered so she could look at plan info and find out what subsidy she would get, once again 24 days into this websites (sic) launch all we got were error messages… I am 24 days now without a sale and will NOT have a paycheck this month do to the lack of ability to access this site.”

Noted Greg: “Has anyone got insurance thru the gov program yet? If so who? I would like to talk with one that has this in place.”

Jeb asked, “I don’t understand why men have to pay for ‘women’s health care’ items.”

Noted Mel: “I’ve filled out and submitted the application at least 10 times… Have I inadvertently started 10 different files that will all need to be sorted out someday?”

Said Don, “Give me the private sector and free market system!”

“I continue to be unable to create my account,” said Elizabeth. “I have tried all month. My high risk insurance will terminate at the end of December so it is critical that I be able to get new insurance through the marketplace.”

Ryan wrote that his current premium of $208 per month is rising to $887 per month. “The affordable Care Act is a contradiction, and destined to implode and take our economy with it. Hold on friends – it aint’ gonna be pretty!”

Penny wrote: “Can’t create account. Trying over and over again.”

Elizabeth was out of patience: “I give up!”

Occasionally, someone in support of the program turned up. This came from John: “The Repukes and the biased conservative main stream media need to stop lying about the Obamacare website. It works just fin (sic) if you follow the instructions. Unfortunately there are a lot of dummies out there so it may take awhile .. be patient. I also suspect TEA tard sabotage. Obama needs to take a hard line against the repuke saboteurs.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Obamacare Forcing Indiana Hospitals To Cut Hundreds Of Jobs – Right Scoop

The Obamacare wrecking ball is not only skyrocketing premiums, but destroying healthcare jobs as well:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Another ‘Affordable Care’ Sticker Shock Looms – Wall Street Journal

President Obama and supporters of his health-care law have defended it by saying that the Affordable Care Act is “the law of the land.” However, the spending reductions in the 2011 Budget Control Act – the so-called sequester – also remain “the law of the land.”

In promoting the former, the Obama administration has failed to enforce the latter. As a result, people trying to buy health insurance on the new exchanges are getting incomplete and misleading information, and they may experience more sticker shock next year.

Some have claimed that the sequester “exempts” ObamaCare’s subsidies from spending reductions. That is only half true. The Budget Control Act does exempt from sequestration the premium subsidies for households with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($94,200 for a family of four) and that meet other eligibility criteria.

But other ObamaCare subsidies, paid directly to insurance providers on behalf of eligible beneficiaries, are subject to the sequester – namely “cost-sharing subsidies.” These include subsidies for households with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level ($58,875 for a family of four) to reduce copayments and deductibles. They also include subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket expenses for households with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level.

The Obama administration has acknowledged that the cost-sharing subsidies are subject to sequester reductions. A May report from the White House Office of Management and Budget estimated that the sequester would reduce the subsidies by 7.2% in fiscal year 2014. That amounts to a $286 million reduction through next September – the first nine months of ObamaCare.

However, the administration hasn’t issued guidance on how it will implement the required cuts. Appearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Aug. 1, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner declined repeated requests to explain how the cost-sharing subsidy reductions would be applied. She did, however, pledge that the administration would release more information before the Oct. 1 start of open enrollment in ObamaCare. But that deadline came and went without more information.

Clearly, someone will be left holding the bag, and the administration doesn’t want to address who that someone will be.

There are two possible outcomes. The first is that individuals who have managed to enroll in subsidized health insurance will find they’ve been misled about their copays and deductibles. Families who currently think their plan will charge a $20 copayment for doctor visits may instead face a $25 charge when the sequester kicks in. Individuals who now believe they face maximum out-of-pocket costs of $2,000 may end up paying hundreds more.

The other alternative is that insurers may be stuck with the sequester cuts. A May 31 Congressional Research Service report, noting that ObamaCare requires insurers to reduce cost-sharing for eligible individuals regardless of the sequester, concluded that “insurers presumably will still have to provide required coverage to qualifying enrollees but they will not receive the full subsidy to cover their increased costs.” In other words, the CRS, Congress’s own think tank, believes insurers may be forced to eat the costs of the sequester reductions – $286 million through September, and billions more through 2021.

Having first proposed the sequester two years ago, the Obama administration now finds itself on the horns of a self-imposed dilemma. It can tell the American people that the “good deal” President Obama promised isn’t as good as they thought – that those who spent hours and days signing up on Healthcare.gov bought coverage that will cost more than advertised. If full disclosure truly were to prevail, the administration would also admit that this classic bait and switch occurred solely due to its failure to account for its responsibilities under the Budget Control Act.

Or the administration can try to force insurers to bear the full costs of the sequester reductions—and watch them promptly drop out of the exchanges.

This is no mere “glitch” in the website, nor was it unforeseen. The administration has known for years that the cost-sharing subsidies were subject to sequester, but has failed to plan for its impact.

In her Aug. 1 appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Ms. Tavenner testifed that it is the administration’s “strong preference that the issue of sequestration go away entirely.”

But neither Ms. Tavenner nor President Obama can pick and choose which laws they wish to enforce. And the administration’s rush to implement one law, while ignoring the requirements of another, means Americans could face a rude awakening when they discover what their ObamaCare coverage will cost them.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.

.
@EvanFeinberg

OptOut.org

.

Hidden Camera Catches Culprit Taking Man’s Second Amendment Sign… Turns Out To Be A Cop

Hidden Camera Catches Culprit Taking Man’s Second Amendment Sign – Fox News

A New York man, frustrated when his pro-Second Amendment sign kept disappearing, was surprised when the hidden camera he set up revealed the culprit to be a local cop.

.

.

.

Jon Gibson, of rural Lake Lincolndale, about 50 miles north of New York City, told FoxNews.com he set up a hunting field camera near the sign, which reads “Protect the Second Amendment,” and features the silhouette of an assault rifle, after two mysteriously vanished. A third sign disappeared before the camera finally captured the sign stealer – a police officer from the nearby Somers Police Department.

“It was pure shock to see,” Gibson said to FoxNews.com about first seeing the video recorded on Monday. “He had a huge smile on his face as he’s kicking down the sign.

“I was in total disbelief to see such criminal behavior from a law-enforcement officer,” he added.

Gibson’s lawyer, Richard Bombardo, told FoxNews.com that they are currently having his property surveyed to be certain that the signs were not on the public right-of-way, which, though on Gibson’s property, would be restricted for signage.

“If the sign was close enough to public property, then they were within their right,” Bombardo said to FoxNews.com. “But if it was solely on his property, that’s where the issue is.”

Somers Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy told FoxNews.com that the signs were indeed on public property – within 15 feet of the road – and were removed to comply with town ordinances.

“The town does not allow signs in the right of way,” Murphy said. “The police chief had received numerous complaints from neighbors and it was determined that the sign was posted in the right of way.”

Murphy also denied Gibson’s claim that the officer had attempted to destroy the sign.

“I have seen the images that were taken, but it is my understanding that he was loosening the sign from the ground,” she said. “It was brought to the Police Department and it is still intact and he (Gibson) would be able to come pick it up.”

However, images provided to FoxNews.com by Gibson clearly show the officer in mid-kick, snapping the post of the sign in half.

Murphy also said that there was never a fine issued, but that Gibson did receive a letter from the Somer Building Department.

Gibson says that he never received any sort of citation and that he’s been singled out as other signs in the area have been left undisturbed.

“This isn’t about the Second Amendment. My First Amendment and even my Fifth Amendment rights have been violated,” he said, explaining that words and image on the sign are protected by his right to free speech and the sign itself was taken from him without due process.

“I’m not quite sure where this is going to go, but what’s important here is that people need to defend their rights,” Gibson said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Your Daley Gator Wednesday Re-blog – Sign Senator Cruz’s Petition To Defund ObamaCare

HELP MAKE THIS A VIRAL POST BY SHARING IT WITH EVERY PATRIOT YOU KNOW!

.
Dont Fund Obamacare
………………………Click on image above to sign petition.

.

.

.

.
.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.
Republican Senators who have not yet committed to defunding ObamaCare.

AK – Murkowski, Lisa – 202-224-3004
AL – Sessions, Jeff – 202-224-4124
AL – Shelby, Richard – 202-224-5744
AR – Boozman, John – 202-224-4843
AZ – Flake, Jeff – 202-224-4521
AZ – McCain, John – 202-224-2235
GA – Chambliss, Saxby – 202-224-3521
GA – Isakson, Johnny – 202-224-3643
ID – Crapo, Mike – 202-224-6142
IL – Kirk, Mark – 202-224-2854
IN – Coats, Dan – 202-224-5623
KS – Moran, Jerry – 202-224-6521
KS – Roberts, Pat – 202-224-4774
KY – McConnell, Mitch – 202-224-2541
ME – Collins, Susan – 202-224-2523
MO – Blunt, Roy – 202-224-5721
MS – Cochran, Thad – 202-224-5054
MS – Wicker, Roger – 202-224-6253
NC – Burr, Richard – 202-224-3154
ND – Hoeven, John – 202-224-2551
NE – Johanns, Mike – 202-224-4224
NH – Ayotte, Kelly – 202-224-3324
NV – Heller, Dean – 202-224-6244
OH – Portman, Rob – 202-224-3353
PA – Toomey, Pat – 202-224-4254
SC – Graham, Lindsey – 202-224-5972
SC – Scott, Tim – 202-224-6121
TN – Alexander, Lamar – 202-224-4944
TN – Corker, Bob – 202-224-3344
TX – Cornyn, John – 202-224-2934
UT – Hatch, Orrin – 202-224-5251
WI – Johnson, Ron – 202-224-5323
WY – Barrasso, John – 202-224-6441

.

.
Send a message to the House as well.

.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.

.
H.R.2682: Defund Obamacare Act Of 2013 (Introduced In House – IH) – Library Of Congress

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2682

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 11, 2013

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. JONES, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. COTTON, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. BARTON, Mr. OLSON, Mr. HALL, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. DESANTIS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. SCALISE, and Mr. YOHO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

——————————————————————————————————————————–

A BILL

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defund Obamacare Act of 2013′.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or of the amendments made by either such Act.

(b) Limitation- No entitlement to benefits under any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or the amendments made by either such Act, shall remain in effect on and after the date of the enactment of this Act, nor shall any payment be awarded, owed, or made to any State, District, or territory under any such provision.

(c) Unobligated Balances- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all unobligated balances available under the provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are hereby rescinded.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

COSPONSORS (98), ALPHABETICAL:

Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Barr, Andy [KY-6] – 7/16/2013
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 7/24/2013
Rep Bentivolio, Kerry L. [MI-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-12] – 7/11/2013
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 7/17/2013
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 7/11/2013
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 7/22/2013
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Collins, Doug [GA-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Cotton, Tom [AR-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 7/19/2013
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 7/11/2013
Rep Daines, Steve [MT] – 7/17/2013
Rep DeSantis, Ron [FL-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] – 7/25/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 7/11/2013
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 7/17/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] – 7/23/2013
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-4] – 7/19/2013
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 7/16/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 7/26/2013
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 7/24/2013
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Hudson, Richard [NC-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep King, Steve [IA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 7/23/2013
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 7/24/2013
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 7/18/2013
Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 7/26/2013
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Messer, Luke [IN-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Mullin, Markwayne [OK-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 7/17/2013
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 7/22/2013
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 7/11/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Perry, Scott [PA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Radel, Trey [FL-19] – 7/26/2013
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 7/17/2013
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-17] – 7/24/2013
Rep Salmon, Matt [AZ-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 7/26/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 7/26/2013
Rep Smith, Jason T. [MO-8] – 7/19/2013
Rep Southerland, Steve II [FL-2] – 7/24/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] – 7/11/2013
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 7/17/2013
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 7/26/2013
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 7/23/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 7/19/2013
Rep Weber, Randy K. Sr. [TX-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wenstrup, Brad R. [OH-2] – 7/11/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Williams, Roger [TX-25] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] – 7/26/2013
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Yoho, Ted S. [FL-3] – 7/11/2013

Click HERE For More Information

.

.
Defunding Obamacare: Questions & Answers, Excuses & Responses – Heritage Action For America

Dont Fund Obamacare

POLICY AND TECHNICAL

“What do you mean by defunding Obamacare?”

Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider to a “must pass” bill (debt limit, annual spending bill, etc.) that 1) prohibits any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare; 2) rescinds any unspent balances that have already been appropriated for implementation; and 3) turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that are on auto-pilot.

“There is no such thing as defunding Obamacare.”

That is a false statement. Congressmen who assert this are either asserting that funding is not being spent to implement Obamacare (false) or that a defund amendment cannot technically be executed (again, false). Defunding Obamacare can be done, and it has been attempted by the House of Representatives recently. For instance, in 2011, after gaining the majority, the Republican House included such a defunding provision on the continuing spending resolution (HR 1) when the bill first passed the House. The provision was later discarded in negotiations with the President and the Senate, but the effort began with promise.

“What is the urgency to defund Obamacare now?”

On January 1, 2014, Obamacare’s new main entitlements – the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies – are scheduled to take effect. Open enrollment for both programs begins on October 1, 2013, at the start of the new fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government will spend $48 billion in 2014 – and nearly $1.8 trillion through 2023 – on these new entitlement programs. Also on January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product – health insurance – for the first time ever. Individuals and families who don’t comply will be penalized by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Obama Administration has requested over $400 million in funding and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats for the IRS to implement the individual mandate and 46 other statutory provisions in the law. Within the Administration, the blizzard of Obamacare rules and regulations continues apace. Regulators have now written over 20,000 pages of Obamacare-related rules and notices in the Federal Register. Many of these regulations will increase the cost of insurance; CBO concluded Obamacare would raise individual health insurance premiums by $2,100 per year.

“Isn’t defunding Obamacare impossible because most of the funding is ‘mandatory’ (or on ‘auto-pilot’) and cannot be amended via the annual appropriations process?”

No. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the IRS, “will incur substantial administrative costs to implement the law’s private insurance reforms and its changes to the federal health care programs.” And while Obamacare provided $1 billion in mandatory implementation funding when it was enacted, HHS projects that this is largely spent. According to CRS, Obamacare “administrative costs will have to be funded through the annual discretionary appropriations.” Furthermore, annual appropriations bills routinely carry funding limitations to block all sorts of activities (for example, the Hyde Amendment), as well make changes to mandatory spending. These latter provisions are called “changes in mandatory program spending” (CHIMPS). Even if these riders were not so common-place, the stakes of so many provisions of Obamacare scheduled to take effect would present grounds for an exception.

“Isn’t defunding impossible because there is not a specific funding stream for Obamacare? Funding is embedded throughout the federal government and not specifically designated.”

No. Congress is aware of all of the programs that fund Obamacare because CRS has provided such a list and the Appropriations Committees are well-versed in the funding intricacies of the law. However, a blanket prohibition against funding all activities associated with implementing the law is all that is needed to halt implementation. Each program does not have to be specifically defunded.

POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC

“My Congressman supports repealing Obamacare but not defund….”

It is wonderful that Congressmen support repealing Obamacare, but it’s not enough. The House has had numerous votes to repeal Obamacare, but the chances of statutorily repealing the law decreased once President Obama won a second term. Conservatives cannot wait another three-and-a-half years to begin dismantling Obamacare; they need to leverage current opportunities to defund Obamacare on “must-pass” spending bills.

“Since Obamacare is the President’s ‘signature achievement’ won’t he veto any effort to defund the program? Why should conservatives make this the focus of their anti-Obamacare efforts?”

There is a critical window of opportunity to stop the flow of funding for Obamacare from now until October 1, 2013, when the new fiscal year begins. It is during the same window that the President and Congress must pass bills to fund the government for the coming year. It is entirely appropriate for conservative members of Congress to use this opportunity to say, “No more funding for Obamacare!” and wage a serious and determined fight. If the Republican House girds for this fight – and wins the national argument with the urgency coming from a number of scheduled implementation dates and the law’s rising unpopularity – President Obama will be forced to compromise.

“If you don’t have the votes for a statutory repeal, why would you think you can get the votes to defund Obamacare?”

The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the ultimate “power of the purse.” If Congress chooses not to fund Obamacare activities for the upcoming fiscal year, the Obama Administration cannot act to implement the law. The President’s party does not control the House of Representatives, which must originate debt limit and spending bills to fund the government. And the House Republican Majority was elected in 2010, on the basis of its platform against Obamacare.

“Won’t adding a provision to defund Obamacare to a ‘must-pass’ appropriations bill lead to a government shutdown?”

Obviously, this will set up a major political confrontation with President Obama, but it is the sort of conflict that will allow conservatives in the House of Representatives to remind the American people that the worst aspects of Obamacare are about to take hold and a defunding rider is the only thing standing in the way.

If House Republicans insist on defunding Obamacare, it is possible that the Obama Administration will shut the government down. This would not be the end of the world, and it needs to be an option. President Clinton shut the government down in 1995, by refusing to sign legislation to fund the government. While most pundits in Washington DC believe that this was a catastrophic political failure for Republicans, it is a fact that the House Republicans maintained their majority in 1996, even with a popular president of another party on the ticket. And their willingness to not accept all of Clinton’s demands was crucial towards eventually balancing the budget and reforming welfare. The nation can no longer afford for conservatives to leave political leverage on the table.

“Shouldn’t Obamacare opponents focus instead on repealing pieces of the law where there is bipartisan support – for example, the medical device tax or the IPAB – in order to reinforce the fact that Obamacare is not set in stone and make its supporters take hard votes?”

Washington is filled with special interest groups lobbying everyday to secure a “fix” for the part of Obamacare that affects their industry. There is no “fix” for this law and every time Congress caves to a special interest and makes the law “better” for that group, a little less momentum exists for full and final defunding or repeal. “Fix” votes also give Obamacare supporters every opportunity to appear reasonable and willing to fix the worst excesses of the law. The grim reality is that if the opponents of Obamacare are not willing to use every bit of political leverage at their disposal – a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, mostly made up of Congressmen from safe seats with constituents who strongly object to Obamacare – to halt implementation of the law, then it will be set in stone. There is simply no more time, particularly as the massive exchange subsidies are made available and the Medicaid expansion takes effect.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
Add this image to your facebook page.

.

URGENT! Sign The Petition To Defund ObamaCare – Join Ted Cruz, Mike Lee And Rand Paul Today

HELP MAKE THIS A VIRAL POST BY SHARING IT WITH EVERY PATRIOT YOU KNOW!

.
Dont Fund Obamacare
………………………Click on image above to sign petition.

.

.

.

.
.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.
Republican Senators who have not yet committed to defunding ObamaCare.

AK – Murkowski, Lisa – 202-224-3004
AL – Sessions, Jeff – 202-224-4124
AL – Shelby, Richard – 202-224-5744
AR – Boozman, John – 202-224-4843
AZ – Flake, Jeff – 202-224-4521
AZ – McCain, John – 202-224-2235
GA – Chambliss, Saxby – 202-224-3521
GA – Isakson, Johnny – 202-224-3643
ID – Crapo, Mike – 202-224-6142
IL – Kirk, Mark – 202-224-2854
IN – Coats, Dan – 202-224-5623
KS – Moran, Jerry – 202-224-6521
KS – Roberts, Pat – 202-224-4774
KY – McConnell, Mitch – 202-224-2541
ME – Collins, Susan – 202-224-2523
MO – Blunt, Roy – 202-224-5721
MS – Cochran, Thad – 202-224-5054
MS – Wicker, Roger – 202-224-6253
NC – Burr, Richard – 202-224-3154
ND – Hoeven, John – 202-224-2551
NE – Johanns, Mike – 202-224-4224
NH – Ayotte, Kelly – 202-224-3324
NV – Heller, Dean – 202-224-6244
OH – Portman, Rob – 202-224-3353
PA – Toomey, Pat – 202-224-4254
SC – Graham, Lindsey – 202-224-5972
SC – Scott, Tim – 202-224-6121
TN – Alexander, Lamar – 202-224-4944
TN – Corker, Bob – 202-224-3344
TX – Cornyn, John – 202-224-2934
UT – Hatch, Orrin – 202-224-5251
WI – Johnson, Ron – 202-224-5323
WY – Barrasso, John – 202-224-6441

.

.
Send a message to the House as well.

.
Dont Fund Obamacare

.

.
H.R.2682: Defund Obamacare Act Of 2013 (Introduced In House – IH) – Library Of Congress

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2682

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 11, 2013

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. JONES, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. COTTON, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. BARTON, Mr. OLSON, Mr. HALL, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. DESANTIS, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. SCALISE, and Mr. YOHO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, and House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

——————————————————————————————————————————–

A BILL

To prohibit the funding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defund Obamacare Act of 2013′.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds shall be made available to carry out any provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or of the amendments made by either such Act.

(b) Limitation- No entitlement to benefits under any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), or the amendments made by either such Act, shall remain in effect on and after the date of the enactment of this Act, nor shall any payment be awarded, owed, or made to any State, District, or territory under any such provision.

(c) Unobligated Balances- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all unobligated balances available under the provisions of law referred to in subsection (a) are hereby rescinded.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

COSPONSORS (98), ALPHABETICAL:

Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Barr, Andy [KY-6] – 7/16/2013
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 7/24/2013
Rep Bentivolio, Kerry L. [MI-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-12] – 7/11/2013
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 7/17/2013
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 7/11/2013
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 7/22/2013
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Collins, Doug [GA-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 7/17/2013
Rep Cotton, Tom [AR-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 7/19/2013
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 7/11/2013
Rep Daines, Steve [MT] – 7/17/2013
Rep DeSantis, Ron [FL-6] – 7/11/2013
Rep DesJarlais, Scott [TN-4] – 7/25/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Farenthold, Blake [TX-27] – 7/11/2013
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 7/15/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Flores, Bill [TX-17] – 7/17/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Gardner, Cory [CO-4] – 7/23/2013
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Gosar, Paul A. [AZ-4] – 7/19/2013
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 7/16/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] – 7/26/2013
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 7/24/2013
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Hudson, Richard [NC-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 7/23/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep King, Steve [IA-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep Labrador, Raul R. [ID-1] – 7/15/2013
Rep LaMalfa, Doug [CA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] – 7/23/2013
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 7/24/2013
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 7/18/2013
Rep Massie, Thomas [KY-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 7/26/2013
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] – 7/11/2013
Rep Messer, Luke [IN-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Mullin, Markwayne [OK-2] – 7/22/2013
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] – 7/11/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 7/17/2013
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 7/22/2013
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 7/11/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] – 7/11/2013
Rep Perry, Scott [PA-4] – 7/22/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] – 7/11/2013
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-8] – 7/11/2013
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 7/24/2013
Rep Radel, Trey [FL-19] – 7/26/2013
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Rokita, Todd [IN-4] – 7/17/2013
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-17] – 7/24/2013
Rep Salmon, Matt [AZ-5] – 7/17/2013
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] – 7/17/2013
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 7/26/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 7/26/2013
Rep Smith, Jason T. [MO-8] – 7/19/2013
Rep Southerland, Steve II [FL-2] – 7/24/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] – 7/11/2013
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] – 7/17/2013
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 7/26/2013
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 7/23/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 7/19/2013
Rep Weber, Randy K. Sr. [TX-14] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wenstrup, Brad R. [OH-2] – 7/11/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 7/11/2013
Rep Williams, Roger [TX-25] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 7/17/2013
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 7/11/2013
Rep Womack, Steve [AR-3] – 7/26/2013
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 7/24/2013
Rep Yoho, Ted S. [FL-3] – 7/11/2013

Click HERE For More Information

.

.
Defunding Obamacare: Questions & Answers, Excuses & Responses – Heritage Action For America

Dont Fund Obamacare

POLICY AND TECHNICAL

“What do you mean by defunding Obamacare?”

Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider to a “must pass” bill (debt limit, annual spending bill, etc.) that 1) prohibits any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare; 2) rescinds any unspent balances that have already been appropriated for implementation; and 3) turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that are on auto-pilot.

“There is no such thing as defunding Obamacare.”

That is a false statement. Congressmen who assert this are either asserting that funding is not being spent to implement Obamacare (false) or that a defund amendment cannot technically be executed (again, false). Defunding Obamacare can be done, and it has been attempted by the House of Representatives recently. For instance, in 2011, after gaining the majority, the Republican House included such a defunding provision on the continuing spending resolution (HR 1) when the bill first passed the House. The provision was later discarded in negotiations with the President and the Senate, but the effort began with promise.

“What is the urgency to defund Obamacare now?”

On January 1, 2014, Obamacare’s new main entitlements – the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies – are scheduled to take effect. Open enrollment for both programs begins on October 1, 2013, at the start of the new fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government will spend $48 billion in 2014 – and nearly $1.8 trillion through 2023 – on these new entitlement programs. Also on January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product – health insurance – for the first time ever. Individuals and families who don’t comply will be penalized by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Obama Administration has requested over $400 million in funding and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats for the IRS to implement the individual mandate and 46 other statutory provisions in the law. Within the Administration, the blizzard of Obamacare rules and regulations continues apace. Regulators have now written over 20,000 pages of Obamacare-related rules and notices in the Federal Register. Many of these regulations will increase the cost of insurance; CBO concluded Obamacare would raise individual health insurance premiums by $2,100 per year.

“Isn’t defunding Obamacare impossible because most of the funding is ‘mandatory’ (or on ‘auto-pilot’) and cannot be amended via the annual appropriations process?”

No. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the IRS, “will incur substantial administrative costs to implement the law’s private insurance reforms and its changes to the federal health care programs.” And while Obamacare provided $1 billion in mandatory implementation funding when it was enacted, HHS projects that this is largely spent. According to CRS, Obamacare “administrative costs will have to be funded through the annual discretionary appropriations.” Furthermore, annual appropriations bills routinely carry funding limitations to block all sorts of activities (for example, the Hyde Amendment), as well make changes to mandatory spending. These latter provisions are called “changes in mandatory program spending” (CHIMPS). Even if these riders were not so common-place, the stakes of so many provisions of Obamacare scheduled to take effect would present grounds for an exception.

“Isn’t defunding impossible because there is not a specific funding stream for Obamacare? Funding is embedded throughout the federal government and not specifically designated.”

No. Congress is aware of all of the programs that fund Obamacare because CRS has provided such a list and the Appropriations Committees are well-versed in the funding intricacies of the law. However, a blanket prohibition against funding all activities associated with implementing the law is all that is needed to halt implementation. Each program does not have to be specifically defunded.

POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC

“My Congressman supports repealing Obamacare but not defund….”

It is wonderful that Congressmen support repealing Obamacare, but it’s not enough. The House has had numerous votes to repeal Obamacare, but the chances of statutorily repealing the law decreased once President Obama won a second term. Conservatives cannot wait another three-and-a-half years to begin dismantling Obamacare; they need to leverage current opportunities to defund Obamacare on “must-pass” spending bills.

“Since Obamacare is the President’s ‘signature achievement’ won’t he veto any effort to defund the program? Why should conservatives make this the focus of their anti-Obamacare efforts?”

There is a critical window of opportunity to stop the flow of funding for Obamacare from now until October 1, 2013, when the new fiscal year begins. It is during the same window that the President and Congress must pass bills to fund the government for the coming year. It is entirely appropriate for conservative members of Congress to use this opportunity to say, “No more funding for Obamacare!” and wage a serious and determined fight. If the Republican House girds for this fight – and wins the national argument with the urgency coming from a number of scheduled implementation dates and the law’s rising unpopularity – President Obama will be forced to compromise.

“If you don’t have the votes for a statutory repeal, why would you think you can get the votes to defund Obamacare?”

The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the ultimate “power of the purse.” If Congress chooses not to fund Obamacare activities for the upcoming fiscal year, the Obama Administration cannot act to implement the law. The President’s party does not control the House of Representatives, which must originate debt limit and spending bills to fund the government. And the House Republican Majority was elected in 2010, on the basis of its platform against Obamacare.

“Won’t adding a provision to defund Obamacare to a ‘must-pass’ appropriations bill lead to a government shutdown?”

Obviously, this will set up a major political confrontation with President Obama, but it is the sort of conflict that will allow conservatives in the House of Representatives to remind the American people that the worst aspects of Obamacare are about to take hold and a defunding rider is the only thing standing in the way.

If House Republicans insist on defunding Obamacare, it is possible that the Obama Administration will shut the government down. This would not be the end of the world, and it needs to be an option. President Clinton shut the government down in 1995, by refusing to sign legislation to fund the government. While most pundits in Washington DC believe that this was a catastrophic political failure for Republicans, it is a fact that the House Republicans maintained their majority in 1996, even with a popular president of another party on the ticket. And their willingness to not accept all of Clinton’s demands was crucial towards eventually balancing the budget and reforming welfare. The nation can no longer afford for conservatives to leave political leverage on the table.

“Shouldn’t Obamacare opponents focus instead on repealing pieces of the law where there is bipartisan support – for example, the medical device tax or the IPAB – in order to reinforce the fact that Obamacare is not set in stone and make its supporters take hard votes?”

Washington is filled with special interest groups lobbying everyday to secure a “fix” for the part of Obamacare that affects their industry. There is no “fix” for this law and every time Congress caves to a special interest and makes the law “better” for that group, a little less momentum exists for full and final defunding or repeal. “Fix” votes also give Obamacare supporters every opportunity to appear reasonable and willing to fix the worst excesses of the law. The grim reality is that if the opponents of Obamacare are not willing to use every bit of political leverage at their disposal – a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, mostly made up of Congressmen from safe seats with constituents who strongly object to Obamacare – to halt implementation of the law, then it will be set in stone. There is simply no more time, particularly as the massive exchange subsidies are made available and the Medicaid expansion takes effect.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
Add this image to your facebook page.

.

More Institutionalized Child Abuse From Our Public Schools… This Time The Victim Is Deaf (Video)

Three-Year-Old Deaf Boy Told To Change His Name; School Says His Sign Looks Too Much Like A Gun (Video) – Gateway Pundit

Three-year-old Hunter Spanjer was told to change his name. School officials say his sign looks too much like a gun.

.

FOX News reported:

The parents of a 3-year-old deaf boy from Nebraska say his preschool told them he must change the way he signs his name because it looks like a finger-pistol, but the school says the family has their signals crossed.

The family of pre-schooler Hunter Spanjer said officials at the Grand Island Public Schools told them the manner in which the boy signs his name is a violation of its “weapons in school” policy. The claim they were told Hunter had to modify the way he signs his moniker to comply with the school’s zero tolerance code against weapons in school.

“Anybody that I have talked to thinks this is absolutely ridiculous,” Hunter’s grandmother, Janet Logue, told KGIN. “This is not threatening in any way.”

Brian Spanjer, the boy’s father, said the sign is a registered symbol with the Signing Exact English system. The encouragement and support his family has received since reports of the controversy have surfaced has been “amazing,” he said.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

President Asshat To Sign UN Gun Treaty During Summer Recess

Obama To Sign UN Gun Treaty During Summer Recess – Big Peace

In an attempt to avoid public scrutiny, President Obama plans to sign the controversial United Nations gun treaty in August, when Congress is in summer recess. According to White House press secretary Jay Carney, Obama will sign the treaty “before the end of August,” even though legally he could have done so next week.

.
……….

The treaty is problematic for a variety of reasons ranging from the substantive to the procedural. On substance, the treaty is designed to regulate arms importers and exporters, which the United States already does. The treaty, however, does not properly regulate foreign countries, leaving the United States on the hook while leaving actual wrongdoers alone. Meanwhile, signatories are supposed to keep information on “end users” of arms imported into their country and to give that information to the supplying country. In other words, it makes it more difficult for American citizens to import arms, and guarantees the solid chance that foreign governments have information about domestic gunowners.

Procedurally, the United States originally insisted that the treaty go through consensus decision-making, meaning that everyone sign on. But when a conference to do so failed, the US decided that the treaty did not need to apply to all countries. Countries abstaining from the vote include China, Russia, India, and Egypt.

While the Obama administration openly supported the treaty when it was first proposed, it has changed its view since the failure of domestic gun control legislation. Now, it appears that the White House wants the benefit of being on the record with regard to the treaty, but does not want the fallout of a public battle over the treaty before the 2014 elections, especially given the fact that the treaty will not be ratified in the Senate.

“We believe it’s in the interest of the United States,” Carney said of signing the treaty. “While we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that need to be resolved.”

While President Obama wants to delay the treaty for political reasons, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly wants it signed as soon as possible. “The United States welcomes the opening of the Arms Trade Treaty for signature and we look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

16,000 Colorado Citizens Sign Petition To Recall Leftist, Anti-Gun State Senator

Recall Of Colorado Anti-Gun Pol Gets 16,000 Signatures – Daily Caller

Opponents of Colorado Senate President John Morse on Monday turned in more than 16,000 signatures demanding the Democratic leader’s recall. That’s more than twice the number required to trigger a special election that’s expected to be fought behind the scenes by national interests on both sides of the gun control debate.

.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has 15 days to certify that at least 7,178 of the signatures are valid for the recall election to proceed.

One of the main organizers of the effort told Denver’s 9News that she feels “very comfortable” meeting the threshold.

“With that much of a cushion, having half of them get tossed out, I’ve never seen that many be invalid,” Laura Carno, a political strategist, told the station.

Meanwhile, Morse and his supporters have charged that many of the signatures were gathered under false pretenses. The Denver Post reports that some of its readers said petitioners told them that Morse wanted to repeal Colorado’s “Make My Day” law, which immunizes homeowners from prosecution if they’re defending themselves against intruders.

In fact, Morse had proposed holding the owners, sellers and manufacturers of sporting rifles liable for any damage they cause, but he dropped the legislation before it could be voted on. Even a fellow Democrat called the proposal “absolutely nuts.”

Morse was the highest-profile Democrat in the state legislature supporting a wide range of gun control bills. Of seven bills that were introduced, five passed and will become law next month.

Morse can challenge the signatures in court, which he told 9News he was considering.

“Thousands of those signatures were obtained inappropriately,” Morse said. “Now, will we be able to prove that? We’ll have 15 days to figure that out. That’s going to be tricky.”

If petitioners have met the threshold, Morse can either go through with an election or he can resign and have the Democrats choose a replacement to serve out his term, an option he has said in the past he wouldn’t take.

An election will cost taxpayers about $150,000, El Paso County Clerk Wayne Williams told the Denver Post, but many expect the race to attract national attention and campaigning.

“It does look increasingly like Morse is going to be fighting for his political life, and Morse is almost a bit player in all this,” Denver political analyst Floyd Ciruli said in the Colorado Observer.

“It’s going to be national behemoths squaring off against each other in the form of [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg and the NRA,” he said.

Just the news that Morse’s opponents are submitting signatures has garnered national comment.

In a statement released Monday, Michael Sargeant, the director of the Washington, D.C.-based Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee blasted Morse’s opponents as “extremists in Colorado [who] want to waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to recall Senator Morse, for the supposed ‘malfeasance’ of working to make his community safer.”

Morse is term- limited and ineligible to run again after 2014. Democrat Mike Merrifield, a former state representative and former state coordinator for Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has already filed paperwork to run for the seat. Speculation has been that if Morse chooses to resign rather than run in a special election, Merrifield would be the obvious replacement.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.