Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Gen. Michael Hayden: Assad Army Weakened Just by US Threat of Action

While debate swirls in Washington over whether the United States should take limited military action against Syria, a former head of the CIA and NSA says that just the threat of action has already weakened the capabilities of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"He's dispersed his forces, he's camouflaged his forces, he's hidden his forces. That means he can't use his forces," Gen. Michael Hayden said Monday on CNN. 

That said, the political fracturing that has evolved in the West while President Barack Obama has threatened action without actually taking any has weakened the impact of that threat, Hayden said.

"So if our purpose here is to show resolve, we can do it physically. I just don't know that the psychic effect now is going to be all that we wanted it to be," Hayden told CNN.

Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies are going to want to show resolve, too, Hayden said. "So I would expect one of those actors, particularly the Iranians, engineering some sort of response. Once you start this, it's hard to control it."

Hayden said he supports taking action, but that the limited "one and done" firing of Tomahawk missiles into the area won't likely end U.S. involvement. 

"Once you start using heat, blast and fragmentation to text messages to another leader things can get out of control," he said.

"Our strategic reach weapon is air power and those Tomahawk missiles with the fleet in the eastern Mediterranean," Hayden said. "Their strategic reach weapon is Hezbollah. And they could then use Hezbollah to attack Americans, American interests in the region, and perhaps as far as North America."

Via: Newsmax


Continue Reading....

WATCH: Greg Gutfeld's Hilarious Speech At The Defending The Dream Summit

Greg Gutfeld spoke yesterday at the Right Online and Defending the Dream Summit

Via: Fox News


Continue Reading....

Lee, Cruz cheer ‘defund Obamacare’ petition benchmark

Over a million people have signed onto a petition calling on Congress not to fund Obamacare, the Senate Conservatives Fund announced Tuesday.
The petition, which has been pushed by two of the loudest voices in the “defund Obamacare” movement, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee and Texas Republican Ted Cruz, hit the one million signatures mark Monday morning.
The number of signatures now stands at over 1,018,340 as of publication.
According to Lee and Cruz, the signatures reveal a growing grassroots momentum against funding Obamacare.
“The American people are standing up, speaking out and demonstrating their absolute disdain for the unaffordable and unfair train wreck that is Obamacare,” Lee said in a statement.
“With over 1,000,000 signatures petitioning Congress to defund Obamacare the momentum is mounting and members of both parties, in both houses, would be wise to take heed and side with the American people,” he added.
Cruz echoed Lee’s sentiment, arguing “it is a testament to the grassroots tsunami” that the petition —- which launched on July 27 — was able to amass over million signatures in 37 days.
“Defunding Obamacare by Oct. 1 is the best chance we have to stop this ‘huge train wreck,’ and we need to build on this August surge to get it accomplished,” Cruz added.
Via: Daily Caller

Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes

OVERVIEW

9-3-13 #1President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.
9-3-13 #2The public has long been skeptical of U.S. involvement in Syria, but an April surveyfound more support than opposition to the idea of a U.S.-led military response if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed. The new survey finds both broad concern over the possible consequences of military action in Syria and little optimism it will be effective.
Three-quarters (74%) believe that U.S. airstrikes in Syria are likely to create a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region and 61% think it would be likely to lead to a long-term U.S. military commitment there. Meanwhile, just 33% believe airstrikes are likely to be effective in discouraging the use of chemical weapons; roughly half (51%) think they are not likely to achieve this goal.

Obama Reduces 2014 Pay Hike for U.S. Troops, Still Fighting in Afghanistan

afghanistan(CNSNews.com) - As promised in his Fiscal Year 2014 budget, President Obama has just informed Congress that he will cap next year's pay raise for U.S. military personnel at 1 percent, instead of the 1.8 percent raise set by the formula Congress established.

The announcement came on Friday afternoon, at the start of the long Labor Day weekend, in a letter to Congress.

"I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members, who have made such great contributions to our Nation over the past decade of war," President Obama wrote to congressional leaders. "As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course. This effort requires tough choices, especially in light of budget constraints faced by Federal agencies."

Obama said he has decided to "exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to set the 2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent" for members of the military.

"This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2014 Budget and will not materially affect the Federal Government's ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services," Obama wrote. 


Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

ROSS PEROT FOUNDATION DONATES $1 MILLION TO SCANDAL-HIT PLANNED PARENTHOOD

The Ross Perot Foundation has provided a $1 million gift to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Texas following the abortion giant’s payment of $4.3 million for a settlement in a Medicaid fraud case.

According to Steven Ertelt at LifeNews, the foundation associated with billionaire businessman Perot announced the $1 million donation last week.
In a statement through Planned Parenthood, Margot Perot said:
For nearly 100 years Planned Parenthood has helped to educate men and women regarding family planning and general family health. Our family has supported this nonprofit for many years because we are impressed with the work they do — providing birth control, scientifically-based education, breast health exams, and basic life-saving healthcare for women who cannot afford services otherwise.
On July 24th, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that his office had obtained a $1.4 million settlement against Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC) for Medicaid fraud. The total settlement, according to the Houston Chronicle, was $4.3 million. The settlement was to be split among the state of Texas, the federal government, and the whistleblower who uncovered the fraud.
The Perot Foundation has given more than $200 million to various charities. According to a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, the donation is undesignated, meaning that the funds can be used for the organization’s general mission.
Last year, Karen Reynolds, a former PPGC employee, filed a whistleblower’s complaint with the Attorney General of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that the abortion business engaged in an intricate Medicaid fraud scheme.
According to LifeNews, the former “health care assistant” submitted company memos and emails to support her charge that PPGC had engaged in a system-wide plot to swindle Medicaid, Title XX, and the Women’s Health Program out of tens of millions of dollars over the last decade.
Reynolds alleged that her bosses trained PPGC staff to bill government agencies for medical and family planning services that were never rendered, for services that would not generally be provided by medical personnel, and for abortion-related services that were covered up to appear as non-abortion-related.

Kerry on Obama Attacking Syria: 'He Has Right to Do That No Matter What Congress Does'

Secretary of State John Kerry(CNSNews.com) - On three national television programs on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeated an argument President Barack Obama had made on Saturday when Obama announced that he wanted Congress to authorize him to use military force in Syria.
The president does not need authorization from Congress to initiate acts of war, Kerry said.
“He has the right to do that no matter what Congress does,” Kerry said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “That is his right and he asserted that in his comments yesterday.”
“The President has the right and he has asserted that right that he could do what’s necessary to protect the national security of the United States at any point in time,” said Kerry.
The secretary of state made the same argument on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I said that the President has the authority to act, but the Congress is going to do what’s right here,” Kerry told host David Gregory.
Kerry also made the argument on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopouos."
“The President has the right--as you know, George,” said Kerry. “The President of the United States has the right to take this action, doesn’t have to go to Congress, but he does so with the belief – and this is why I think it’s courageous--the president knows that America is stronger when we act in unity.”
In a speech delivered in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, Obama first said that he had decided to take military action in Syria. Then he said that he had also decided to seek congressional authorization for that action. Then he said that he did not need congressional authorization, and could unilaterally order the U.S. military to take action in Syria without congressional authorization.
Via: CNS News

Boehner: 'I'm Going to Support the President's Call for Action' in Syria

"The use of these weapons has to be responded to and only the United States has the capability and capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated," said Boehner after meeting with Obama. "I appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the Congress over the last couple of weeks. I also appreciate the president asking the Congress to support him in this action. This is something that the United States as a country needs to do. I'm going to support the president's call for action. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action. We have enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up whether it is necessary."

Laura Ingraham Mauls ‘Neo-Cons’ Supporting Syria: Not ‘Another Ill-Conceived, Undefined War’

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham attacked neoconservative Republicans in the harshest of terms on Tuesday’s Fox & Friends. As a former Iraq War supporter, she said that there is no reason to support intervention in Syria. Ingraham blasted some in the GOP for supporting “another ill-conceived, undefined war,” and added that the Iraq War regrettably paved the way for PresidentBarack Obama to assume the presidency. 
“We have a current weapon of mass destruction in this country,” Ingraham began expressing her opposition to intervention in Syria. “It’s called unemployment.”
Ingraham attacked Republicans for agreeing with pro-intervention forces who suggest that America’s credibility is at stake if the U.S. does not take action in Syria. “Our credibility is not at stake. The president’s credibility is at stake,” Ingraham insisted.
“For the neoconservatives to say, our credibility is at stake, I would submit to them that our credibility might be at stake because of very confused foreign policy over the last 12 years, let alone over the last 12 months,” she added.
“I was one of the most vociferous supporters of the Iraq War,” Ingraham continued. “That strengthened Iran’s hand.”
“In the last 10 years, we’ve gotten involved in two major military actions,” she said. “Our country is poorer, we have more unemployment, we have Barack Obama as president. We wouldn’t have Obama as president, sadly, if we didn’t go into Iraq.”
“The Constitution is very clear: there is not a blank check for any executive, Republican or Democrat, to bring the country into another ill-conceived, undefined war,” Ingraham declared.
Ingraham said that military experts she speaks with cannot identify a strategy that would change the situation on the ground in Syria.
Watch the clip below via Fox News Channel:

Allen West to Congress: Don’t let Obama make you the scapegoat for Syria strikes

Former Florida Republican Rep. Allen West, a 22-year veteran of the U.S. Army, criticized President Barack Obama Monday for his failure to recognize the tactical consequences of his decision to delay a strike on Syria so that Congress may weigh in.
On Laura Ingraham’s radio show on Monday, West said this was a symptom of Obama not wanting to deal with those consequences and looking for someone to share the blame, should action in Syria go wrong. He pointed to Obama’s actions against Libya which he didn’t seek congressional approval to back up that claim.
“I think what you just saw play out was a president who has a history of voting ‘present,’ and all of a sudden he got out ahead of himself, and he realized that, ‘If I take an action on my own, I’m going to own this,’” West said. “And no one is thinking like the military mindset, what are the branches and sequels of an action? What is the counter-reaction? What is the follow-on, second- and third-order effects we’re going to have to contend with? And I believe that is something President Obama does not want to deal with.”
Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz: U.S. has 'dozens' of allies

Debbie Wasserman Schutlz is pictured. | AP PhotoDemocratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the U.S. would be bolstered with support from “dozens” of international allies if the United States makes military strikes against Syria.

“I mean we have, from the briefings that I’ve received, there are dozens of countries who are going to stand with the United States, who will engage with us on military action and also that back us up,” Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “Piers Morgan Live.”

Following President Obama’s announcement Saturday that he is seeking Congressional authorization, Wasserman Schultz emphasized that U.S. intervention would be met with international support.

“In both military and diplomatic and political support, there are dozens of nations who had committed to back us up,” she said.
However, Wasserman Schultz said she was not a “liberty to say” specifically what countries have expressed supporting in missile strikes, because some of the information she received was classified.

Echoing the sentiments of John McCain (R-Ariz.), Wasserman Schultz has been vocal on her support of intervention adding “and voting this down would be catastrophic for our credibility.”

Schulz also emphasized the need to need to support U.S. allies in the region.

“And we’ll make sure that not only that we can protect our allies in the region from the strengthening of Assad’s hands, if we don’t respond, like Israel and Jordan and Turkey, but also that we stand against moral obscenities, as Secretary Kerry rightly labeled this chemical weapons attack, and make sure that it’s understood that you will receive a severe and certain response from the United States and our allies when you violate international norms, like Assad has.”



Syria crisis: The British public has its say as two-thirds oppose strikes

Exclusive poll for The Independent sends clear message as David Cameron resists pressure for second vote

The Iraq War has turned the British public against any military intervention in the Middle East, according to a ComRes survey for The Independent.

By a margin of two-to-one, the British people oppose President Barack Obama’s plan for military strikes against the Assad regime and say that the UK should keep out of all conflicts in the region for the foreseeable future.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg yesterday rejected growing all-party pressure from MPs and peers for another Commons vote on whether British forces should join air strikes in Syria, only four days after MPs rejected the Prime Minister’s plan to take part.

But Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said the Government could revisit the question if circumstances changed “very significantly”.

Opinion at Westminster appears to be shifting in favour of action as the Obama administration produces more evidence about the horrific chemical weapons attack on a suburb near Damascus.
But Mr Cameron shows no signs of risking a second humiliating Commons defeat. Labour will not propose a second vote unless there is a “very significant” change, such as al-Qa’ida obtaining chemical weapons in Syria.


Obama's Summer Slump

featured-imgPresident Barack Obama has just ended a summer shadowed by weakness: A convergence of external events and what even some Democrats are calling self-inflicted setbacks have cast a harsh light on a so-far anemic second term.

He is now beginning an autumn in which conflicts that have festered sullenly for years — in Syria and on Capitol Hill — are poised for climactic resolution.

The next several weeks offer a chance for Obama to shift the direction of a presidency in which he has been slowly bleeding both personal popularity and, more importantly, the intangible mystique of power — one that flows from a president’s ability to let domestic and foreign rivals alike know they will either bend to his will or pay a severe penalty.

Interviews over the holiday weekend found surprise — and, among sympathetic Democrats, widespread dismay — at how Obama has handled some recent episodes. These Democrats, many of whom spoke on background to avoid a public confrontation with their own leader, included members of Congress and several people who have either worked for Obama or consulted closely with his West Wing.
In the fifth year of his presidency, some of these observers say, he is making choices that are reminiscent of the missteps some predecessors have made during their awkward early months in power:
• Through public statements and private leaks, Obama and his subordinates have opened an unusually wide window into the president’s internal deliberations.

In Washington and around the world, both friends and foes can easily read his doubts about his own Syria policy and witness his agonizing over the use of military force in real time. His decision over the Labor Day weekend to seek congressional approval for a limited military strike on Syria came after administration officials earlier signaled that reprisals for use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Assad’s regime were imminent, perhaps just hours away. On Capitol Hill, the delay is being interpreted in both parties, not as evidence of a principled belief in constitutional authority, but as Obama’s attempt to share ownership if his Syria decisions go awry.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading...

Kerry's cosy dinner with Syria's 'Hitler': Secretary of State and the man he likened to German dictator


  • Kerry pictured around a small table with his wife and the Assads in 2009
  • Assad and Kerry lean in towards each other, deep in conversation 
  • Picture taken in February 2009 when Kerry led a delegation to Syria
  • Kerry yesterday compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein
Cosy: This astonishing photograph shows the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his wife having an intimate dinner with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his wife in 2009
An astonishing photograph of John Kerry having a cozy and intimate dinner with Bashar al-Assad has emerged at the moment the U.S Secretary of State is making the case to bomb the Syrian dictator's country and remove him from power.

Kerry, who compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein yesterday, is pictured around a small table with his wife Teresa Heinz and the Assads in 2009.

Assad and Kerry, then a Massachusetts senator, lean in towards each other and appear deep in conversation as their spouses look on.

A waiter is pictured at their side with a tray of green drinks, believed to be lemon and crushed mint.




US-BRAZIL TENSIONS RISE AFTER NEW NSA SPY REPORT

AP PhotoRIO DE JANEIRO (AP) -- The Brazilian government condemned a U.S. spy program that reportedly targeted the nation's leader, labeled it an "unacceptable invasion" of sovereignty and called Monday for international regulations to protect citizens and governments alike from cyber espionage.

In a sign that fallout over the spy program is spreading, the newspaper Folha de S.Paulo reported that President Dilma Rousseff is considering canceling her October trip to the U.S., where she has been scheduled to be honored with a state dinner. Folha cited unidentified Rousseff aides. The president's office declined to comment.

The Foreign Ministry called in U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon and told him Brazil expects the White House to provide a prompt written explanation over the espionage allegations.

The action came after a report aired Sunday night on Globo TV citing 2012 documents from NSA leaker Edward Snowden that indicated the U.S. intercepted Rousseff's emails and telephone calls, along with those of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, whose communications were being monitored even before he was elected as president in July 2012.

Mexico's government said it had expressed its concerns to the U.S. ambassador and directly to the U.S. administration.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Luiz Alberto Figueiredo said, "We're going to talk with our partners, including developed and developing nations, to evaluate how they protect themselves and to see what joint measures could be taken in the face of this grave situation."

Via: AP

Continue Reading....

PUSHING FOR SYRIA ACTION, OBAMA STARES DOWN PUTIN...ON GAYS

In a display of utter political incoherence, President Obama plans to meet with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates in Russia while visiting the Kremlin, even as he attempts to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin for support on an international military action against Syria. Russian opposition to American intervention in Syria has been a major factor in Obama’s decision to seek approval from Congress for military action in Syria. On Saturday, Obama blasted the UN Security Council, a veiled reference to Russia, by calling it “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold [Syrian President Bashar] Assad accountable.”

While in Moscow, Obama plans to meet with human rights activists Lev Ponomarev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, legal aid non-governmental-organization director Pavel Chikov, and Coming Out.
Russia and the United States have been at odds over myriad issues over the past few months, including Russia’s grant of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden, Russia’s law against “gay propaganda,” and Russia’s Middle Eastern policy in support of Iran and Syria.
President Obama’s language has become markedly dismissive of Putin and Russia; in a recent press conference, Obama characterized Putin as demonstrating the body language of a “bored kid in the back of a classroom.” That language was said to have infuriated the notoriously prickly Putin. During that same press conference, Obama said, “One of the things I'm really looking forward to is maybe some gay and lesbian athletes bringing home the gold or silver or bronze, which I think would go a long way in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we're seeing there.”
The White House website brags about Obama’s stellar relationship with Russian leadership: “In one of his earliest new foreign policy initiatives, President Obama sought to reset relations with Russia and reverse what he called a ‘dangerous drift’ in this important bilateral relationship.”
Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013).

Monday, September 2, 2013

A vote of no confidence is in order

What with our president having received the Nobel Peace Prize and leading us in a pivot to Asia, I guess the White House wants to pretend that the humiliating debacle America is suffering — in front of the world — isn’t happening. What’s wrong with asking Congress for authorization to go to war? The Obama apologencia will tell us it is what the president meant to do all along. They will tell us things are going according to plan. What’s the rush? But no, for the first time ever, an American president is saying, “The buck does NOT stop here.”

The president is a spent force, both domestically and internationally. Congress should help by voting to cut our losses; it should resist opening the door to the uncertain consequences of a military campaign conducted, without conviction or clear purpose, by this commander in chief. If Republicans can limit the president’s authority to wander and blunder on the world stage, there is a moral obligation to do so.

Of course Syria should be viciously punished for using chemical weapons, but who trusts this president to do so in such a way that also sends a clear message to Iran? No one does. Why would they? Better to leave Iran with a modicum of doubt than let them witness any more of the tepid uncertainty, lack of conviction or absence of moral clarity from President Obama.

The only thing worse than no response from America is a floundering response, so Congress should stop it while they can. We don’t need to go through the half-hearted lobbying effort in Congress, which will just underscore the incompetence and incapabilities of this administration. Republicans should vote to end this disaster now. A vote of no confidence is in order.

The problem is that we have serious problems that require an able president both at home and abroad. It is too soon for our president to be a marginalized lame duck. Doing nothing is one thing, but doing harm by not properly wielding the power a president holds is another.

The only possible remedy — and one that is probably impossible for this president’s ideology or ego to allow — would be for him to demand that Congress return early from their summer break, deliver a prime-time speech before a joint session, win the vote and then unleash a blistering punishment. This is probably the only way to salvage some of the president’s credibility and give Iran pause.

Unless the members of the national security team who surround Obama are so addicted to the personal grandeur and perks of office, surely someone will resign rather than be a part of the humiliation and harm this president is doing.

It is too early to take today’s headlines and extrapolate out to the next election; and national security issues don’t drive votes. I’ve resisted making 2014 election predictions, except to acknowledge that the natural midterm political cycle in 2014 favors Republicans. Fourteen months is a lifetime in politics blah blah blah, but the tectonic plates are beginning to shift and the first sign of a wave election could be forming. If the big issues of peace and prosperity are going to matter, what do the Democrats have to say for themselves?

What aspect of the economy instills confidence — never mind enthusiasm — for the future? Where in the world is America stronger as a result of the Obama presidency? Nothing is getting better for the Democrats.

CITING OBAMACARE, 40,000 LONGSHOREMEN QUIT THE AFL-CIO

In what is being reported as a surprise move, the 40,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced that they have formally ended their association with the AFL-CIO, one of the nation's largest private sector unions. The Longshoremen citied Obamacare and immigration reform as two important causes of their disaffiliation.

In an August 29 letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, ILWU President Robert McEllrath cited quite a list of grievances as reasons for the disillusion of their affiliation, but prominent among them was the AFL-CIO's support of Obamare.

"We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along," McEllrath wrote in the letter to Trumka.

The ILWU President made it clear they are for a single-payer, nationalized healthcare policy and are upset with the AFL-CIO for going along with Obama on the confiscatory tax on their "Cadillac" healthcare plan.

The Longshoreman leader said, "President Obama ran on a platform that he would not tax medical plans and at the 2009 AFL-CIO Convention, you stated that labor would not stand for a tax on our benefits." But, regardless of that promise, the President has pushed for just such a tax and Trumka and the AFL-CIO bowed to political pressure lining up behind Obama's tax on those plans.

McEllrath also went on to say that they support stronger immigration reform than the AFL-CIO is supporting.

One ILWU committeeman was even harsher on both the AFL-CIO and the President. ILWU Coast Committeeman Leal Sundet criticized the AFL-CIO telling LaborNotes.com that Trumka was marching "in lockstep" with Obama both on the "Cadillac healthcare tax" as well as immigration.

Sundet slammed Obama's immigration plan saying it is "designed to give [only] highly-paid workers a real path to citizenship."

Private sector unions have fallen to an all time low participation rate in the US workforce. Unionized workers now account for only 11.3 percent of the US workforce.

Labor union frustration boils over with president on ObamaCare

Unions are frustrated the Obama administration hasn’t responded to their calls for changes to ObamaCare.

Labor has watched with growing annoyance as the White House has backed ObamaCare changes in response to concerns from business groups, religious organizations and even lawmakers and their staffs.

They say they don’t understand why their concerns so far have fallen of deaf ears.

“We are disappointed that the non-profit health plans offered by unions have not been given the same consideration as the Catholic Church, big business and Capitol Hill staffers,” Unite Here President D. Taylor told The Hill.

It's an issue that Obama may have to face when he speaks to the AFL-CIO convention a week after Labor Day.

Most unions backed ObamaCare’s passage, but labor argues provisions in the law could cut employee hours, unfairly tax their plans and force workers off their union health plans into the law’s potentially more costly insurance exchanges.

The key issue are union members who many up many of the roughly 20 million people who use non-profit multi-employer “Taft-Hartley” health plans.

Unions want the administration to change ObamaCare so that those plans are treated as qualified health plans that can earn tax subsidies. Under the administration's interpretation of the law, the multi-employer plans are not eligible for the subsidies.

Without those subsidies, employers may have the incentive to drop the plans and force orkers onto the insurance exchanges.

“The Democrats have completely given the store away to the for-profit industry,” Taylor said. “Without any question, we have a scenario set up that ObamaCare has turned all the money over to the for-profit plans and the non-profit plans will fade away.”

Sunday, September 1, 2013

John McCain: Great Britain ‘No Longer a World Power’

Senator John McCain had harsh words for Great Britain Friday following that country’s decision to not participate in a coordinated attack on Syria.
Appearing on NBC’s Tonight Show, McCain said, “I feel badly about the British. They're our dear friends, but they're no longer a world power. It's just a fact of life.”
JAY LENO: Why would the U.N. not say, "You know, Senator McCain, that's a good idea. Why don't we go bomb the runway?" Why doesn't the U.N, no soldiers involved. Nobody is being killed. You're just blowing up land. Why doesn't the U.N. go for this?
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-ARIZONA): The U.N. has turned into an organization tha, in my estimation in many ways is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. Right now, the U.N. is in there ascertaining whether this was a chemical attack. And I think it's fairly obvious, since you see these bodies stacked up with not a a mark on them, and the head of the United Nations has said, "But, we won't apportion blame." What? You're not going to say who is responsible for it? That's your tax dollars at work.
LENO: Why won't they say?
MCCAIN: Because they want to be neutral. They want to be neutral about everything. And I feel badly about the British. They're our dear friends, but they're no longer a world power. It's just a fact of life.
Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Popular Posts