This and That...

[Warph]

How Obamacare Is Hurting My Family With Chronically Ill Kids

This is a video from Pattie Curran, a mom who describes herself as a "Catholic Tea Party hippie". This video is from August, she tweeted it out again yesterday, indicating that the issues outlined in the video still remain.

She has two critically ill children and walks, point by point, through the problems that Obamacare poses for her family. The video is very instructive, as it goes beyond just the question of premiums and delves into the aspect of all the hidden charges within the law.

She notes:

1. Over the five years prior to Obamacare, her deductible had increased $50. Since Obamcare, it has increased $1200.

2. Her copay for the blood product she needs for her one of her children has increased 100%

3. Medical equipment that ill people use, such as the pumps, catheters, needles, tubing that she needs, all now have a "medical device tax" on them.

4. Medication that helped her son's kidney condition for five to six years had a copay of $131. That copay is now $532.

5. They had no increase in premiums in 2009 and 2010. She notes in the video her premiums since Obamacare have increased $1528. She later adds in the description of the video that her premiums in 2014 will have increased $3066/year. She asks, where is that $2500 decrease that Obama promised?

6. Her medication copays used to be $4000 to $5000/year, now they are $10,000, a 100% increase since Obamacare passed.

7. Pattie also speaks about the reduction in care, noting the layoffs in hospitals that she has observed because of her experience with her children.

8. FLEX spending has dropped from $5000 to $2500.

9. Another hidden tax, not often mentioned- the ability to deduct medical expenses has changed. Whereas you used to be able to deduct if your medical expenses exceeded 7.5% of your AGI, now you can't until it reaches past 10%, thus costing millions of families more and particularly causing economic harm to the sick.

You can find out more about the hidden taxes and expenditures here. They separate it out into taxes that may affect the average American and those less likely. That's a fiction, since the taxes in the "allegedly less likely column" that involve taxes on companies are all going to be passed onto consumers. I will likely have several thousand dollars in raised taxes out of that "less likely" column.

[Warph]

Obuma's continuing crap on killing America's Military....

NY Times: American Troops Are Being Paid Too Much

(Groan)

Putting Military Pay on the Table – NY Times:
Big-ticket weapons like aircraft carriers and the F-35 fighter jet have to be part of any conversation about cutting Pentagon spending to satisfy the mandatory budget reductions known as the sequester. But compensation for military personnel has to be on the table, too — even though no other defense issue is more politically volatile or emotionally fraught.

After a decade of war, the very idea of cutting benefits to soldiers, sailors and Marines who put their lives on the line seems ungrateful. But America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is over or winding down, and the Pentagon is obliged to find nearly $1 trillion in savings over 10 years. Tough choices will be required in all parts of the budget. Compensation includes pay, retirement benefits, health care and housing allowances. It consumes about half the military budget, and it is increasing.

In a speech last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that without serious savings in this area, "we risk becoming an unbalanced force, one that is well compensated but poorly trained and equipped, with limited readiness and capability." Meanwhile, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, told a hearing: "The cost of a soldier has doubled since 2001; it's going to almost double again by 2025. We can't go on like this, so we have to come up with [new] compensation packages."

[Warph]

Moonbat College Now Gives Applicants Seven Gender Choices

(The other Fruit & Nutz State... Celebrate diversity!)

Via MyNorthwest:
http://mynorthwest.com/874/2402529/Local-colleges-offer-7-gender-choices-on-application

Recently, Ron's wife was filling out an application for Bellevue College when she noticed something interesting. Instead of the standard "Male" and "Female" boxes that one checks on applications, there was the question: What is your 'gender identity'? And seven different options: Feminine, Masculine, Androgynous, Gender Neutral, Transgender, Other and Prefer Not To Answer.

Under that is the question: "What is your sexual orientation?" Where you can then check Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Queer, Straight/Heterosexual, Other or Prefer not to answer.

After Ron showed us the application, we wondered why they were collecting this data. So I went down to Bellevue College and got some answers from the LGBTQ Center adviser, Colin Donovan.

"We started collecting the data this fall quarter. It's about being able to track how well GLBTQ, and gender variant students, are doing in school and how we can design better services, better classes, better programs to make sure these students succeed. Up until this point there has been no way to track how that's done."

The data is 100 percent private and not shared with anyone, and for now will only be used internally. This new data collecting system was accepted by all community and technical colleges in Washington state.

Petri Muhlhauser is involved in the school's LGBTQ Center leadership program. She says sometimes LGBTQ students have different needs.

[Ross]

Is it possible?

UN Ordered To Kill American Troops Who Don't Turn In Their Guns

William Wallace

It seems that during the election season, the UN may have had a reason to send troops to watch our polls. There is being leaked information that the UN has been given orders to fire on American citizens that won't turn in their guns.

Most of what will be revolves around a Supreme Court case that is yet to be decided that was heard on the 5th of November. There has been little or no press coverage of the Bond vs the United States case.

In Bond vs the United States, a crazy woman tried to poison her ex and his mistress. Leave it to the U.S. Department of Justice and President Obama to pursue the case as vital to national security that this woman be tried under international law instead of US state law in which she was found guilty of attempted murder. They have a more sinister plan in mind.

The fact is that if Bond vs the United States goes through, they can use international treaty to enforce any action they want to. Now who remembers that John Kerry signed the treaty for the UN Small Arms.

If that unholy legislation were to be enforced, then it would give the United Nations the right to come in and take the weapons away from lawful, gun owning citizens. In one swift move they could take away the Second Amendment of the United State's Constitution.

Now there are reports and information being put out that if that comes to pass, the UN has the authority to fire on American citizens. Not only do they have the right, they have been ordered to do so.

(There is a video that is well worth watching at the web site)
http://thelibertydigest.com/2013/12/01/un-ordered-to-kill-american-troops-who-dont-turn-in-their-guns/

[Ross]

True!

[Warph]

Is it possible?

UN Ordered To Kill American Troops Who Don't Turn In Their Guns

William Wallace

It seems that during the election season, the UN may have had a reason to send troops to watch our polls. There is being leaked information that the UN has been given orders to fire on American citizens that won't turn in their guns.

Most of what will be revolves around a Supreme Court case that is yet to be decided that was heard on the 5th of November. There has been little or no press coverage of the Bond vs the United States case.

In Bond vs the United States, a crazy woman tried to poison her ex and his mistress. Leave it to the U.S. Department of Justice and President Obama to pursue the case as vital to national security that this woman be tried under international law instead of US state law in which she was found guilty of attempted murder. They have a more sinister plan in mind.

The fact is that if Bond vs the United States goes through, they can use international treaty to enforce any action they want to. Now who remembers that John Kerry signed the treaty for the UN Small Arms.

If that unholy legislation were to be enforced, then it would give the United Nations the right to come in and take the weapons away from lawful, gun owning citizens. In one swift move they could take away the Second Amendment of the United State's Constitution.

Now there are reports and information being put out that if that comes to pass, the UN has the authority to fire on American citizens. Not only do they have the right, they have been ordered to do so.

(There is a video that is well worth watching at the web site)
http://thelibertydigest.com/2013/12/01/un-ordered-to-kill-american-troops-who-dont-turn-in-their-guns/

(Kerry can sign whatever he wants... it's not binding unless it gets ratified by the Senate, and even Harry Reid isn't THAT dumb.... or is he??
If this passes, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Dictator Barry Soetoro will never see the sun shining again for fear of assassination)

"Complete disarmament" of the American people

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

Monday, July 16, 2012



The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee "complete disarmament" of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target "all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons," according to Forbes' Larry Bell.

Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement "is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control."

A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the "fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms". The letter adds that "...the U.N.'s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."

Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and "international crime syndicates," the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.

This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a "Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World."

Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a "United Nations Peace Force" that would "enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds."

While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, "for the purpose of maintaining internal order," and the UN "peacekeeping" force itself, which would require "agreed manpower."

"The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes," states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet's supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.

As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish -- taking a huge bite out of the second amendment -- is by no means far fetched.

After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.

[Warph]

Obuma's Approval Rating Falls Below 40%
For First Time In RCP's Poll Average

(Aw... how sad.  Love it!

"One night  Mooch stumbled into the white-house with a black eye.  She told her idiot husband Obuma that she heard a noise in the back yard and went to investigate.  The next thing she knew, she was hit in the face and knocked out cold.

"Obuma went to investigate, and he returned a few minutes later, also with a black eye. 'Did you get hit by the same attacker?' Mooch asked.  'No,' Obuma replied. 'I stepped on the same rake.'")

Via RCP:

[Warph]

Cartoon News Network: White House Lying About Claim ObumaCrappyCare Website Handling 50,000 Users At Once, Actual Number As Low As 30,000

(The Obama regime would never lie, right?)

Via WFB:
CNN White House correspondent Brianna Keilar reported Tuesday that the Obamacare website did not handle 50,000 simultaneous users Monday as the Obama administration had claimed.

"Turns out it really topped out somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000," she said. "Some of those problems still being acknowledged by the White House."

[Warph]

White House Exploring Ways to Let Iran Enrich Uranium

Khameni and his buddy Sh!tHead

(Why don't we just give them a few of our own nukes and get it over with)

Via Free Beacon:

The White House is currently examining ways to enable Iran to have its own "domestic" uranium enrichment program, according to a senior Obama administration official.

As the details of a six month interim nuclear deal between Iran and Western nations are hashed out, the White House is exploring the practicality of permitting Iran to continue certain enrichment activities, an issue that Iranian officials have described as a "redline."

"Over the next six months, we will explore, in practical terms, whether and how Iran might end up with a limited, tightly constrained, and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program, including domestic enrichment," White House National Security Council (NSC) spokesman Caitlin Hayden told the Washington Free Beacon.

[Warph]

Netanyahu Not Backing Down, Continues To Bash Obuma's Nuke Deal With Iran, "This Must Be Stopped"

(I Guess Obuma won't be getting that "breather" he was asking Netanyahu for)

Via Times of Israel:

Nuclear negotiations that led to an interim deal with Iran last week were more political theater than substance, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in Rome on Monday, urging Western powers not to ease economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

At a press conference in the Italian capital, the prime minister again expressed strong opposition to the accord, urging European powers to demand a substantial rollback from Iran before agreeing to ease an effective sanctions regime. He warned that although Tehran, led by President Hassan Rouhani, presented a smiling face to the West, it continued to "butcher people in Syria, to promote terrorism" and to support Hezbollah and Hamas.

Even though Iran has not even begun to implement the agreement, there appears to be a general relaxation of sanctions and a rush to accommodate Iran and to make it legitimate, as if Iran has changed anything of its actual policies except to smile, to speak English — on occasion — and to make Powerpoint presentations," Netanyahu remarked. "What a revolution!"

The prime minister warned that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons capabilities, it will be "a pivot of history" that will not only upset progress all over the Middle East, but also might endanger Europe and the world at large.

"This must be stopped," Netanyahu asserted, adding that an end to sanctions against Iran would "mark the end of the possibility of reaching a peaceful resolution to the question of ending Iran's military nuclear program."