No 561 “En mi opinión” Viernes,
Enero 3, 2014.
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R
González Miño Editor.
“EN UN MUNDO DE
MENTIRAS BUSCAMOS LA VERDAD”
End of Extended Unemployment Could Cause Jobless Rate to Tumble
Making people get a job will be the best stimulus to
the economy ever.
Check it out:
Check it out:
The end of extended jobless benefits for more than 1
million Americans last week could cause the unemployment rate to tumble
dramatically early this year, according to some Wall Street analysts.
Nearly 1.4 million people received payments through
the financial-crisis era program as of Dec. 14, 2013, the Labor Department said
Thursday. Those benefits expired last week. If a large portion of the
recipients now drop out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would fall.
TD Securities estimates the decline in the jobless
rate could be as much as a half-percentage point. Other analysts suggest the
fall could be a smaller, but still significant, quarter-point drop.
The unemployment rate is the share of the total labor
force that is out of work but actively seeking employment. To receive jobless
benefits recipients need to keep applying for jobs. But once the government
deposits stop flowing, they may be less motivated to look for work and thus
drop out of the labor force.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2014/01/end-extended-unemployment-cause-jobless-rate-tumble/#KZUJU7I8ZJlbmece.99
WND EXCLUSIVE. WHITE
HOUSE NIGHTMARE: ELIGIBILITY CASE STILL ALIVE… Judges still haven't
decided challenge to Obama's tenure. BOB UNRUH
Filed on appeal
almost a year ago, a legal challenge against Barack Obama remains lurking in
the hallways and offices of the Alabama Supreme Court, where at least two justices already have indicated an interest in the
radioactive issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.
Court officials
confirmed to WND today that the case brought by attorney Larry Klayman, who
founded Freedom Watch, and most recently hit the headlines for a successful fight against
Obama’s program run by the National Security Agency to spy on Americans,
remains on the docket.
It’s been fully briefed, but the justices haven’t announced yet whether
they will hear oral arguments on the dispute, even though Klayman asked for an opportunity.
The case raises some of the same arguments that appeared earlier in
dozens of local, state and federal court cases over Obama’s first term.
They all argue in some fashion that because of the lack of details about
Obama’s birthplace, he might be ineligible to be president under the
Constitution’s requirement. That is thought to have been defined by the
Founders as someone who was born of citizen parents in the country.
If the parents’ citizenship is a qualifier, Obama by his own admission
fails, since he reports his father was a Kenyan student who came to study in
the U.S. but never was a U.S. citizen himself. In fact, the senior Obama
already was married, in Kenya, before he met and married Obama Jr.’s mother,
Stanley Ann Dunham.
This case is brought on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential
nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are
asking Alabama’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to
verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.
Klayman, in a brief, argued that the secretary of state, “having the
power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify –
them if they are found to be ineligible.”
He pointed out that, for example, California Secretary of State Debra
Bowen rejected Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she
was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president be at least
35.
Of significance to the case is the fact that two of the justices have
expressed interest in the truth of the dispute.
In an earlier case,
the justices in that very court denied a petition filed by
McInnish to require Obama
submit an original birth certificate before he could be placed on the state’s
2012 ballot.
At the time, Justice
Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished
concurrence in the case arguing that
McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition,
which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary
presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the
‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein
Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.
Certain documentation
The “certain documentation” is the result of a Cold Case Posse
investigation launched by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Arpaio’s investigation has concluded that based on the evidence, the
birth certificate documentation presented by the White House as “proof
positive” of Obama’s eligibility actually is fraudulent, created on a computer
and not representative of any official document.
Investigators there have raised the possibility of fraud on American
voters because of the document, and forgery on the part of those who created
it.
Then comes Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is on the record wondering about
the truth.
In an interview with
WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his
eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Lakin was stripped of his office and removed from the military when, on
getting new orders, he said he wanted to see evidence that Obama was a
legitimate commander-in-chief of the military, because following the orders of
a fake would, in itself, be illegal.
At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his
personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in
violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
In that 2010 interview
with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural
born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of
evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never
produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our
country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the
law.”
The pending case, on appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit
Court, said the Alabama secretary of state failed her constitutional duty to
verify the eligibility of candidates.
Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that
stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama constitutions, to
protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”
As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of
candidates for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified
for that office has been elected.”
The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every
teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”
“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of
State is the official to cause that to happen.”
Citing the investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, Klayman says state
officials “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable
cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”
“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of
the legitimacy of the de facto president, a question which lies at the very
heart of our American constitutional government, were left unresolved for want
of the simplest of documents, a birth certificate,” Klayman said in an earlier
filing.
If either a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission is
made that it does not exist, he writes, “this most important of legal questions
will have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the
anxiety of Alabama citizens stilled.”
If the issue is not resolved, he said, citizens will be left with the
impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real
concerns.
Moore has established his own reputation as a justice unafraid of
calling the results as he sees them under the Constitution, with little regard
for the consequences. A decade ago, he was removed from the same office he now
holds for defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument
from the state Supreme Court building.
Klayman has described Moore as “one courageous and brave man. There are
few in this country.”
Arpaio’s lead
investigator, Mike Zullo, told WND only weeks ago that the investigation continues, and is getting close to results, as
sheriff’s investigators now are officially helping the volunteer Cold Case
Posse.
“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be
universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything
you can imagine.”
Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could
produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.
But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth
certificate, could be public as early as March.
In an interview with
author and talk-radio host Carl Gallups of PPSimmons News and Ministry Network
and the author of “The Magic Man in the
Sky,” and the new “The Rabbi who Found Messiah,” Zullo said his investigation of the Obama fraud case “does not hinge on Ms. [Loretta] Fuddy.”
Fuddy, a state official in Hawaii who dealt with questions about Obama’s
birth certificate, recently in an airplane crash.
“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our
investigation in this matter,” he said. “If people truly believe that her
untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she
may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should
be very, very concerned.”
Read all the arguments
in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special
reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth
certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had
been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from
a genuine paper document.
“Mr. Obama has, in fact, not offered any verifiable authoritative
document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to
the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,”
he explained. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House
document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed
by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”
Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce
an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.
See some of Zullo’s
evidence:
More recently, Grace Vuoto of the
World Tribune reported that among
the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst
Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has
been defending Obama in eligibility cases.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed
Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,”
Zullo told the World Tribune.
“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told
the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The
very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case
has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”
The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation
and called almost immediately.
“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.
Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my
observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I
examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally
manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”
“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have
never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In
my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the
report.
Investigator Douglas J.
Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that
purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.
He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning
business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an
investigation of the authenticity of document.
Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive
research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27,
2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,”
Hagmann said.
“Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they
conducted extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for
the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back
in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document
presented as an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama.
Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point
of forgery in the affidavit,” wrote Hagmann.
“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the
‘signature’ of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document,
hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of
other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document
supplementing the public affidavit.”
Grounds for impeachment
Last month, WND
columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground
of impeachment.”
“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s
advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill,
knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated
news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing
occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally
crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton wrote.
“Secondly, not one of
the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was
and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has
bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put
forward by U.S. citizens.”
He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state
senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling
evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”
“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general,
a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.
“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas
telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery.
They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”
‘You tell me about eligibility’
Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president,
and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted
he can’t, either.
Trump repeatedly has
insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered
$5 million to the charity or
charities of Obama’s choice if he would release his passport records and
authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other
records.
Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever
accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude
him from being a “natural-born citizen.”
Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting
that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.
“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that
resonated with a lot of people.”
Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was[n't] born in the United
States, do you?”
“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth
certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth
certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either.
Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”
When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.
“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he
said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what
happens over time.”
Read all the arguments
in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special
reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the
marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham),
name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records,
records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia,
baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School
financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records,
Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records,
record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois
state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.
In a brief asking that the Alabama
case be dismissed, Democrats quoted
late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.
The party insisted: “In order for one to accept the claim that President
Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to
buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the
imagination of reasonable minds.”
The brief scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes
Kimmel saying: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born
out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith
sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/white-house-nightmare-eligibility-case-still-alive/#ffVgvP5ebXVTT9dX.99
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/white-house-nightmare-eligibility-case-still-alive/#ffVgvP5ebXVTT9dX.99
Samitier: TODOS CONTRA EL TEA PARTY ¿Cómo
Es Posible? Que La Cámara De Comercio… Que se queja de la deshonestidad y la
INEFICACIA de los politiqueros De Washington Este DISPUESTA A INVERTIR
$50 MILLONES para Que NO SALGAN electos los políticos apoyados por el TEA
PARTY...
|
Did Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Just Turn On
Obama?
Sonia Sotomayor may be more of a mystery than we once thought.
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush, appointed Sotomayor to the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Evidently he saw
something in her that led him to believe that she was somewhat conservative and
not yet turned over to the dark side of the liberal Democrats. She was
finally confirmed by the Senate in 1992.
In 1997, President Bill Clinton obviously saw some of Sotomayor’s more
liberal rulings and appointed her to the US Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. Senate Republicans also saw that she seemed to be turning to the
dark side, but it wasn’t enough to stop them from confirming her appointment in
1998.
In 2009, President Barack Obama needed to replace retiring Supreme Court
Justice David Souter. He seemed to believe that Sotomayor’s conversion to
the dark side was complete and nominated her to the high court to replace
Souter. With the Democrats controlling the Senate, there was little
problem with her confirmation and she was sworn in to the US Supreme Court on
August 8, 2009.
Since her swearing in, Obama has been able to count on Sotomayor’s
support for most of the cases that were heard by the high court.
But on Tuesday, Sotomayor made a statement that may indicate that there
is still yet a glimmer of hope that she has not been completely converted to
the dark lord of liberalism.
A group of Catholic nuns in Colorado had tried to get a religious
exemption from having to comply with the contraception mandate but had been
turned down by the federal government and the lower courts. They pleaded
their case at the list minute, asking the courts to stop them from having to
violate their religious beliefs or pay stiff fines beginning on New Year’s Day.
In what I see as a surprise move, Supreme Court Justice
Sonia Sotomayor issued a last minute
ruling on Tuesday blocking the implementation of the contraception mandate on
the nuns and other religious groups. In her ruling, she stated that
employers who object to the contraception mandate for religious reasons should
not be forced to comply and violate their faith, at least at this time.
She indicated that the Supreme Court will be taking this issue up sometime this
year to finally resolve the conflicts, but until then, she does not believe
that religious employers should be forced to comply or pay the huge fines.
This is definitely what the emperor of the dark side did not want to
hear. Part of his goal with the contraception mandate is to crush
religion, especially Christianity, in America. He wants to snap the
backbone of Christianity so he can replace its role with the rigid steel rods
of socialism. If the contraception mandate is held up by the courts, then
no Christian church or organization will be safe from his tyrannical
rulings. They will lose their tax exemptions and be force to teach what
the state tells them to teach.
Now the question is, when the issue does come up before the Supreme
Court, how will Sotomayor rule? Will she rule to preserve the First
Amendment rights of Americans businesses and churches or will she reveal that
indeed she has turned over to the dark side? Her vote could make all the
difference.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13821/supreme-court-justice-sotomayor-just-turn-obama/#d0vZhKTTQkkuCUAV.99
Peter Martori: Chinese Tycoon Wants to Buy The New York Times. By Patrick Goodenough
Amid a sea of Chinese
flags, recycling tycoon Chen Guangbiao hands over more than 40 Chinese cars to
people whose Japanese-model cars were damaged during anti-Japan protests in
2012. Chen now says he wants to buy the New York Times. (AP Photo, File)
(CNSNews.com) – The New
York Times Company says it’s not for sale, but a high-profile Chinese
businessman and philanthropist eager to buy what he views as the world’s most
influential newspaper plans to fly to New York City this week to push ahead
with his bid.
Chen Guangbiao on Wednesday told the Global Times, a Chinese Communist Party-affiliated
paper, that he has a meeting scheduled Friday with a city firm specializing in
mergers and acquisitions, followed by dinner on Sunday with “a middle-level
leader” from the Times.
He insisted the proposal was serious, saying he had
been eyeing the NYT for two years.
The New York Times Co. did not respond to queries Wednesday, but a
report in the Times quoted
a spokeswoman as saying, “We have no information about any such meeting.”
Amid speculation following the sale of the family-owned Washington Post, NYT
publisher and NYT Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger in a statement last August made it clear that
the Ochs-Sulzberger family had no plans to do the same.
“Will our family seek to sell The Times? The answer to that is no. The Times is not for sale, and the trustees of
the Ochs-Sulzberger Trust and the rest of the family are united in our
commitment to work together with the company’s board, senior management and
employees to lead The New York Times forward
into our global and digital future,” the statement said.
Chen told the Global Times there
was nothing that could not be bought for the right price, expressing optimism
that his “sincere acts” could help to change the publisher’s mind.
The businessman, who made his fortune from recycling
and is known in China for eccentric publicity stunts, said his ownership of the
paper could help to promote his ideals of “environmental protection,
philanthropy and peace on earth,” and “present an authentic China.”
Patriotic Chinese are highly sensitive about the image
of their country in international media, and the government tirelessly promotes
the line that the Asian giant’s rise is peaceful, dismissing as unfounded any
suggestion that it poses a threat to the region or the world.
China’s notion of press freedom also contrasts sharply
to the West’s. Beijing recently announced that some 250,000 Chinese journalists
will for the first time have to take a test on Marxist ideology before their
press cards will be renewed for 2014.
Further, the Xinhua state news agency reported two
weeks ago that the Communist Party’s propaganda department will begin
supervising teaching at the country’s top journalism schools, “to strengthen
education of the Marxist news outlook.”
Chen said if he failed in his bid to buy the NYT Co. outright, he would
settle for buying a stake. If unsuccessful he would also consider other leading
media outlets, he added, citing the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and CNN.
Chen’s past publicity stunts include selling “canned
fresh air” in heavily-polluted Beijing and handing out cash to victims of an
earthquake in 2008.
In mid-2012 a dispute with Japan over contested East
China Sea islands triggered anti-Japanese protests in several Chinese cities,
and Japanese-made cars were targeted by angry demonstrators. Chen then bought
dozens of Chinese-made cars and in a high-profile event gave them to the owners
of the destroyed Japanese models.
Around the same time, Chen turned to the NYT to make a paid political
statement about the dispute with Japan over the islands (which persists, and
worsened in recent months when China declared an air defense
identification zone in the East China Sea in November.)
He took out a half-page advertisement in the main
section of the paper on Aug. 31 that year, accusing Japan of violating China’s
rights to the islands, which China calls Diaoyu and Japan calls Senkaku.
“How would Americans feel, and what would America do,
if Japan announced that Hawaii was its territory?” it asked.
Chen saw the ad as a major success, and began
pondering the value of owning the paper.
“After that, I realized that the Times’ influence
all over the world is incredibly vast,” Reuters this week quoted him as saying.
“Every government and embassy, all around the world, pays attention to the New York Times.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/chinese-tycoon-wants-buy-new-york-times#sthash.24TGRGCX.dpuf
Jorge Aguiar. Doral, Florida: In
reference to the below article from Fox News.
Many did not understand
President Obama “hope and change “. Many useful fools have played along because
they thought it was for the better the social economic change. The rule of law
is no longer being followed and the constitution has been suspended. The many
scandals, directives and Obamacare changes are clear proof of what happened to
the rule of law. Soon many will feel the consequences of Obamacare and what it
really means for the middle class. Governor De Blasio now in New York will
drive the agenda much further. The next election in 2014 is about
“inequality” . Lets see how long is it going to take for the useful fools
in New York to realize what is happening.
STATE LOCAL
New York City swears in first
Democratic mayor in 20 years. Published January 01, 2014 FoxNews.com
For the first
time in 20 years, New York welcomed a Democrat as mayor in an inauguration that
registered a sea change in the city’s politics. A pastor speaking at the
ceremony for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on Wednesday called New York a “plantation,” while
entertainer Harry Belafonte denounced New York under Michael Bloomberg as
“Dickensian,” while the outgoing mayor sat by, BuzzFeed reports.“Let the
plantation called New York City be the city of God, a city set upon the hill, a
light shining in darkness,” Brooklyn-based pastor Fred Lucas Jr. said. “Elevate
our valleys. Make low our mountains. Make our crooked places straight and our
rough places smooth. Oh God, oh God, oh God, break every chain, break every
chain, break every chain.”
“So let me be clear:
When I said we would take dead aim at the tale of two cities, I meant it. And
we will do it.”
- Mayor Bill
de Blasio
11 State AGs Say Obama Breaks Law With Healthcare
Changes
Eleven GOP state attorneys general charge that the
Obama administration is breaking the law by sidestepping Congress to change the
healthcare law, The Hill reports.
In particular, the Republican attorneys general claim the president’s executive action that allows health insurance companies to keep offering insurance plans that have been canceled for not meeting Obamacare rules is "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law."
"We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action," the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "The illegal actions by this administration must stop."
HHS did not respond to a request for comment.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter, which was co-signed by his peers in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.
Another change in the Affordable Health Care Act law by the executive office included the decision to delay the employer insurance mandate for a year, which many lawmakers said should have required a congressional vote.
That change, the attorneys general insist, defies a Supreme Court decision in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney case, in which the court concluded that some enforcement of laws might be subject to judicial review first.
That case had to do with lethal injection. Lawyers for two condemned killers argued the Food and Drug Administration had not certified that the lethal drugs were "safe and effective" for human executions, and should be barred. At issue was whether the FDA had jurisdiction to undertake the enforcement actions requested and, if it did have jurisdiction, whether its refusal to take those actions was subject to judicial review.
Obama has come under blistering fire after millions of people found out their plans were no longer being offered despite his repeated assurance that, under Obamacare, people would be able to keep their insurance plans if they liked them.
The attorneys general argue the Obama action violates precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The AGs' letter also focused on security concerns on the state and federal health insurance exchanges.
HHS continues to "ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers' private information on exchanges," they wrote.
They added that they’re concerned about the administration's decision to "not propose and implement rigorous privacy standards for outreach personnel."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/attorney-general-state-gop-obamacare/2014/01/02/id/544876#ixzz2pLNnyGUK
In particular, the Republican attorneys general claim the president’s executive action that allows health insurance companies to keep offering insurance plans that have been canceled for not meeting Obamacare rules is "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law."
"We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action," the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "The illegal actions by this administration must stop."
HHS did not respond to a request for comment.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter, which was co-signed by his peers in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.
Another change in the Affordable Health Care Act law by the executive office included the decision to delay the employer insurance mandate for a year, which many lawmakers said should have required a congressional vote.
That change, the attorneys general insist, defies a Supreme Court decision in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney case, in which the court concluded that some enforcement of laws might be subject to judicial review first.
That case had to do with lethal injection. Lawyers for two condemned killers argued the Food and Drug Administration had not certified that the lethal drugs were "safe and effective" for human executions, and should be barred. At issue was whether the FDA had jurisdiction to undertake the enforcement actions requested and, if it did have jurisdiction, whether its refusal to take those actions was subject to judicial review.
Obama has come under blistering fire after millions of people found out their plans were no longer being offered despite his repeated assurance that, under Obamacare, people would be able to keep their insurance plans if they liked them.
The attorneys general argue the Obama action violates precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The AGs' letter also focused on security concerns on the state and federal health insurance exchanges.
HHS continues to "ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers' private information on exchanges," they wrote.
They added that they’re concerned about the administration's decision to "not propose and implement rigorous privacy standards for outreach personnel."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/attorney-general-state-gop-obamacare/2014/01/02/id/544876#ixzz2pLNnyGUK
Unlike Target, Obamacare Security Breaches Remain
Secret
Upon learning that their credit card information might
have been compromised, many of the nation's 40 million Target shoppers took
action by cancelling their cards or contacting their banks and credit card
companies. Unfortunately, people do not have the same option if their personal
information is hacked at the Obamacare website.
"The difference is that Target notified consumers when a breach occurred, but the scary part here is that [Obamacare] consumers are not necessarily going to be told that their personal information has been breached," says Tom Flanigan, press secretary for Republican Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee.
"No one is forced to shop at Target, but they are forced to participate in the exchanges and to input very personal health information," Flanigan tells Newsmax.
Alarmed by ongoing reports of security lapses, Black has introduced the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013, which would require the federal government to notify individuals if their personal information has been exposed or compromised.
In a statement announcing the measure, Black said her concerns have grown as tech experts "repeatedly raised red flags about the security of the information people are putting into the [Obamacare] exchanges."
"Americans deserve this basic notice so that they can protect themselves from cyber-attacks and identity theft. Most state-run exchanges are subject to laws that guarantee this notice, and the federal government imposes these same rules on the private sector, yet they have gone out of their way to avoid imposing this basic diligence on their own Obamacare exchange," Black said.
The Obama administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have publicly boasted about the improvements in the efficiency of Healthcare.gov, but the progress report issued at the beginning of December by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) contained no references to fixes to the widely reported security gaps on the website.
"There is an astonishing lack of required accountability for the federal government, regardless of whether the breaches are accidental, as most seem to have been, or intentional. This was an issue that was raised when HHS was putting together rules for the exchange, but they decided they were not going to do that," Eric Boehm of Watchdog.org tells Newsmax.
As Boehm noted in a recent article, there was a proposal offered to strengthen security measures prior to approval of the final rules for the exchanges were approved on March 27.
In that meeting, two individuals suggested taking steps to "ensure the exchanges would promptly notify affected enrollees in the event of a data breach or unauthorized access to the exchange's databases," Boehm wrote.
HHS responded that they had no plans "to include the specific notification procedures in the final rule. Consistent with this approach, we do not include specific policies for investigation of data breaches in this final rule."
In order to remedy the situation, Boehm says, HHS would have to devise and implement a specific department policy requiring disclosure to consumers of breaches, or an act of Congress.
Flanigan tells Newsmax that Black will be "pushing really hard with leadership" to move the bill forward after the Christmas break.
The importance of addressing the security risks was underscored by David Kennedy, a cyber-security expert, who told CNBC that while the website may be functioning more efficiently, adequate security fixes have not been made.
"You're trying to rush to keep the website — the front-end that we see every day — up-and-running. Unfortunately when you do that and you don't do any testing around that, you introduce new exposures," said Kennedy on SquawkBox.
According to a report released by TrustedSec, the average number of hacking events per at one International Fortune 500 company was 232 attacks a day during 2012, but the report noted the company had a "much smaller footprint and profile, and less publicity than the healthcare.gov website."
"Additionally, basic reconnaissance was performed on the Healthcare.gov website, and it appears that there are little to no preventative measures in place to stop attackers from hitting the website continuously, nor detect attackers," said the report.
In interviews conducted with HHS officials, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee learned that since the October 1 launch of Healthcare.gov, at least two"high findings"
Also since October, there have been numerous reports of security breaches on state exchanges, including:
"The difference is that Target notified consumers when a breach occurred, but the scary part here is that [Obamacare] consumers are not necessarily going to be told that their personal information has been breached," says Tom Flanigan, press secretary for Republican Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee.
"No one is forced to shop at Target, but they are forced to participate in the exchanges and to input very personal health information," Flanigan tells Newsmax.
Alarmed by ongoing reports of security lapses, Black has introduced the Federal Exchange Data Breach Notification Act of 2013, which would require the federal government to notify individuals if their personal information has been exposed or compromised.
In a statement announcing the measure, Black said her concerns have grown as tech experts "repeatedly raised red flags about the security of the information people are putting into the [Obamacare] exchanges."
"Americans deserve this basic notice so that they can protect themselves from cyber-attacks and identity theft. Most state-run exchanges are subject to laws that guarantee this notice, and the federal government imposes these same rules on the private sector, yet they have gone out of their way to avoid imposing this basic diligence on their own Obamacare exchange," Black said.
The Obama administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have publicly boasted about the improvements in the efficiency of Healthcare.gov, but the progress report issued at the beginning of December by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) contained no references to fixes to the widely reported security gaps on the website.
"There is an astonishing lack of required accountability for the federal government, regardless of whether the breaches are accidental, as most seem to have been, or intentional. This was an issue that was raised when HHS was putting together rules for the exchange, but they decided they were not going to do that," Eric Boehm of Watchdog.org tells Newsmax.
As Boehm noted in a recent article, there was a proposal offered to strengthen security measures prior to approval of the final rules for the exchanges were approved on March 27.
In that meeting, two individuals suggested taking steps to "ensure the exchanges would promptly notify affected enrollees in the event of a data breach or unauthorized access to the exchange's databases," Boehm wrote.
HHS responded that they had no plans "to include the specific notification procedures in the final rule. Consistent with this approach, we do not include specific policies for investigation of data breaches in this final rule."
In order to remedy the situation, Boehm says, HHS would have to devise and implement a specific department policy requiring disclosure to consumers of breaches, or an act of Congress.
Flanigan tells Newsmax that Black will be "pushing really hard with leadership" to move the bill forward after the Christmas break.
The importance of addressing the security risks was underscored by David Kennedy, a cyber-security expert, who told CNBC that while the website may be functioning more efficiently, adequate security fixes have not been made.
"You're trying to rush to keep the website — the front-end that we see every day — up-and-running. Unfortunately when you do that and you don't do any testing around that, you introduce new exposures," said Kennedy on SquawkBox.
According to a report released by TrustedSec, the average number of hacking events per at one International Fortune 500 company was 232 attacks a day during 2012, but the report noted the company had a "much smaller footprint and profile, and less publicity than the healthcare.gov website."
"Additionally, basic reconnaissance was performed on the Healthcare.gov website, and it appears that there are little to no preventative measures in place to stop attackers from hitting the website continuously, nor detect attackers," said the report.
In interviews conducted with HHS officials, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee learned that since the October 1 launch of Healthcare.gov, at least two"high findings"
Also since October, there have been numerous reports of security breaches on state exchanges, including:
·
On Minnesota's exchange, MNsure, an unencrypted file was inadvertently
sent to the wrong individual. Up to 2,400 people had their private health
information placed at risk when an employee with the exchange accidently sent
information included in an Excel document to insurance broker Jim Koester.
·
Koester told The Minnesota Star Tribune said he was not immediately
concerned but "the more I thought about it, the more troubled I was. What
if this had fallen into the wrong hands? It's scary. If this is happening now,
how can clients of MNsure be confident their data is safe?"
·
In November, the Oregonian reported that Cover Oregon officials
committed three personal data breaches in three days. The cause of the problem
apparently involved the processing of the paperwork, which included the use of
a shared printer to print out individual claims. Cover Oregon is only
processing paper applications because the exchange website is not able to enroll
people yet.
·
Justin Hadley, who logged on to the North Carolina exchange to determine
his eligibility, received information about two separate individuals from South
Carolina.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/target-obamacare-security-breaches/2013/12/24/id/543709#ixzz2pLOcP2eK
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/target-obamacare-security-breaches/2013/12/24/id/543709#ixzz2pLOcP2eK
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
AG Morrisey: Obamacare Rollout Completely 'Mismanaged'
By Bill Hoffmann
State attorneys
general from across the nation are mulling legal action against the Affordable
Care Act, according to Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia.
"I have spoken to a number of other AGs across the country and we're very concerned about the implementation of Obamacare. We all know that there are real design flaws and that even the authors of the law called it a train wreck," Morrisey told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"The fact is that now people across the political spectrum are starting to argue for a delay . . . We're looking at what we can do . . . about the problems that we're seeing in our states because this is affecting real people's lives and it's not fun."
Morrissey said the Obama administration's just-announced delay of enforcement of the individual mandate for six weeks is a sign it believes it "can just make decisions and ignore guidance, regulations, and law. It's a serious problem."
"Look, that at least [is] a recognition from the administration that there are problems. The reality is though, that's just a baby step. There's so much more that's needed," he said.
"This whole rollout has been so mismanaged by the Obama administration, it's time that people across the political spectrum said, at a minimum . . . there should be a delay of all these components for at least a year because this is not ready for prime time."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/morrisey-obamacare-rollout-mismanaged/2013/10/24/id/532947#ixzz2pLPxY67t
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
"I have spoken to a number of other AGs across the country and we're very concerned about the implementation of Obamacare. We all know that there are real design flaws and that even the authors of the law called it a train wreck," Morrisey told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"The fact is that now people across the political spectrum are starting to argue for a delay . . . We're looking at what we can do . . . about the problems that we're seeing in our states because this is affecting real people's lives and it's not fun."
Morrissey said the Obama administration's just-announced delay of enforcement of the individual mandate for six weeks is a sign it believes it "can just make decisions and ignore guidance, regulations, and law. It's a serious problem."
"Look, that at least [is] a recognition from the administration that there are problems. The reality is though, that's just a baby step. There's so much more that's needed," he said.
"This whole rollout has been so mismanaged by the Obama administration, it's time that people across the political spectrum said, at a minimum . . . there should be a delay of all these components for at least a year because this is not ready for prime time."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/morrisey-obamacare-rollout-mismanaged/2013/10/24/id/532947#ixzz2pLPxY67t
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
9 Things You Didn’t Know About the Second Amendment.
1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right
The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it
recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders
used the word “unalienable” previously in the Declaration of Independence;
these rights cannot be created or taken away. In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court
said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the
Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and
declares only that it “shall not be infringed … this is not a right granted by
the Constitution” (p. 19).
2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights
The use of the word “militia” has created some
confusion in modern times, because we don’t understand the language as it was
used at the time the Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court
states in context, “it was clearly an individual right” (p. 20). The operative
clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights.
The Court explains that “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to
individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised
only through participation in some corporate body” (p. 5), adding “nowhere else
in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything
other than an individual right” (p. 6).
3. Every citizen is
the militia
To further clarify regarding the use of the word
“militia,” the court states “the ordinary definition of the militia as all
able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not
necessarily just men. The Court explains: “’Keep arms’ was simply a common way
of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else” (p. 9).
Since the militia is all of us, it doesn’t mean “only carrying a weapon in an
organized military unit” (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual right,
having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p. 20).
4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment
We often hear politicians talk about their strong
commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting.
Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn’t the primary
purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose
[is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to
enable individuals to defend themselves … the ‘right of self-preservation’ as
permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘the intervention of
society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury’ (p.21). They
conclude “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second
Amendment right” (p.56).
5. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny
You’ve probably heard this. It’s listed because this
is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is
made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to
keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms:
“When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they
are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). The Court states that the
Founders noted “that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a
militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia
but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents” (p. 25). At the time of
ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive:
“during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government
would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or
select militia was pervasive” (p.25). The response to that concern was to
codify the citizens’ militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26). Read
more at http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/01/9-things-didnt-know-second-amendment/#P9ZwVFtfGhhw1JD2.99
Enrique
Artalejo: ObamaCare brings new taxes, fees
for 2014
Get ready for the next wave of ObamaCare fees.
With the launch of coverage under the health care law
on Wednesday, a new set of taxes and fees is kicking in this year -- as part of
the hundreds of billions of dollars the government intends to raise over the
next decade to help pay for the program.
This year, the increases come in the form of fees on
health insurance companies which could translate into higher premiums. And for
those who don't buy coverage, the IRS plans to slap them with a fine -- some
call it a "tax" -- for not complying.
The biggest revenue-raiser kicking in this year is an
annual fee on health insurers, meant to help fund premium subsidies and other
provisions.
The fee is projected to bring in $8 billion this year and roughly $100 billion over the next decade. The insurance industry -- and more than 200 House lawmakers -- are trying to repeal it, warning that these costs will be passed onto the consumer (though some will get Affordable Care Act subsidies).
The fee is projected to bring in $8 billion this year and roughly $100 billion over the next decade. The insurance industry -- and more than 200 House lawmakers -- are trying to repeal it, warning that these costs will be passed onto the consumer (though some will get Affordable Care Act subsidies).
An industry-commissioned study by consultant Oliver
Wyman estimated that rates will rise in 2014 by up to 2.3 percent for that
reason alone. By 2023, the study said, rates could be rising annually by up to
3.7 percent because of the tax.
The other major fee to watch out for is the individual
mandate penalty. Under the law, those who do not get insurance by the end of
March and do not qualify for an exemption will be charged the fee. This year,
that penalty will be $95, or 1 percent of household income, whichever is
greater.
The penalty will increase considerably in 2015 and
beyond, though it remains unclear whether it is big enough to compel reluctant
individuals to enter the insurance market.
Finally, insurance companies are dealing with another
set of increases. They are:
-- A so-called "reinsurance fee" will be
applied to some health insurers this year. The temporary fee is meant to raise
$25 billion over three years, to help pay for the cost of those with
pre-existing conditions signing up for coverage through the ObamaCare
exchanges. The fee would start at $63 per person, but then drop to a bit more
than $40 per person in 2015. It would drop again the following year. Critics
warn that this could result in higher premiums, much like the annual tax on
health insurers.
-- Individual and group health insurers will be
required to pay a small fee to fund a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Institute. The fee is set at $2 per covered person this year, and will be
adjusted annually based on "medical inflation."
-- Some insurers will also be hit with a fee to fund
what is known as a "risk adjustment program." This is meant to spread
the risk around, by charging policies with lower-risk customers and using that
money to offset costs for policies with higher-risk customers.
-- The Department of Health and Human Services has
proposed charging a monthly user fee equal to 3.5 percent of the premium for
policies in the federal exchange. This money is meant to help fund the
insurance exchanges.
Republicans argue that all these fees and more will
contribute to rising premiums. House Speaker John Boehner recently called the
law "unworkable and unaffordable."
But supporters, and the Obama administration, argue
that the protections and benefits Americans are getting in return more than
make up for the costs.
When coverage launched on Wednesday, the White House
declared it a "new day for the millions of Americans who finally have the
security that comes from quality, affordable health coverage."
Among the changes, insurance companies can no longer
deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions; insurance companies cannot
impose annual caps on health benefits; and millions may qualify for subsidies
to help them buy insurance. Millions more will qualify for expanded Medicaid
coverage.
Subject: Clint Eastwood best
wishes for a Happy New Year. [“EMO” Thank you… A little bit late but I will
take. LRGM]
A bit of Levity for the Last Monday of the Year.....Happy New Year!
Let there be no doubt! As I enjoy my twilight years, I am often struck by the inevitability that the party must end.
There will be a clear, cold morning when there isn't any "more."
No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat.
It seems to me that one of the important things to do before that morning comes,
is to let every one of your family and friends know that you care for them by finding simple ways
to let them know your heartfelt beliefs and the guiding principles of your life so they can always say,
"He was my friend, and I know where he stood."
So, just in case I'm gone tomorrow, please know this .......
I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist,
terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!
Merry Christmas, and
~ Happy New Year ~
Clint Eastwood
“ THE
FREEDON NEVER IS
FREE ”
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González
Miño Editor ‘IN GOD GOD WE TRUST
No comments:
Post a Comment