Democrats Finally Admitting Obamacare is Bad

So now they are finally getting it! After having voted for it so they could find out what’s it in (thanks a lot Pelosi), there are some Democrats who are finally seeing how awful Obamacare will be for America. They are seeing that it’s just not as “affordable” as Obama said it would be.

12/13/12

From the Washington Examiner:

Sixteen Democratic senators who voted for the Affordable Care Act are asking that one of its fundraising mechanisms, a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices scheduled to take effect January 1, be delayed. Echoing arguments made by Republicans against Obamacare, the Democratic senators say the levy will cost jobs — in a statement Monday, Sen. Al Franken called it a “job-killing tax” — and also impair American competitiveness in the medical device field.

The senators, who made the request in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are Franken, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Robert Casey, Debbie Stabenow, Barbara Mikulski, Kay Hagan, Herb Kohl, Jeanne Shaheen, and Richard Blumenthal. All voted for Obamacare.

Two other Democrats, senators-elect Joe Donnelly and Elizabeth Warren, also signed the letter. Donnelly voted for Obamacare as a member of the House. Warren was not in Congress at the time.

“The medical technology industry directly employs over 400,000 people in the United States and is responsible for a total of two million skilled manufacturing jobs,” the senators wrote in a December 4 letter to Reid. “We must do all we can to ensure that our country maintains its global leadership position in the medical technology industry and keeps good jobs here at home.”

Obama MIA On 9-11

This is an article from Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families. I find it very interesting considering he's writing about Obama's handling of Benghazi, or actually the significant lack of handling the situation.

I was also listening to talk radio yesterday (specifically Andy Dean). Andy had some great ideas of what Obama was thinking. He asked his audience the following:

Could it have been that Obama is so in love with the Muslim world that he didn't want to "upset" any of them by taking military action against the Muslim attackers?

Or was Obama playing politics because the election was only a couple of months away? Andy pointed out that in 1980 (an election year), Jimmy Carter sent in our military to rescue a group of hostages in Iran. The operation was code named Operation Eagle Claw. It was a complete and utter failure due to Carter's poor leadership where service men actually died and no hostages where recovered. Could it have been that Obama thought about Operation Eagle Claw and worried that if he had a repeat performance of Carter's failure, it would cost him the election? After all, such a failure would have been ammunition for Romney just has it had been for Reagan.

I actually believe both theories are correct.

We all know by now that Obama loves the Muslim world. We also know that he won't stand up to terrorist just like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (he supported their rise to power and gave them some of our F-16's after all). We should also know by now that Obama would do anything to be re-elected.

From: Gary L. Bauer


Obama MIA On 9-11?

Remember during the Democratic presidential campaign in 2008 when Hillary Clinton ran an ad asking the American people whom they trusted more to look out for America’s interests when the inevitable emergency phone call came in at 3 AM? It was an effective ad because it highlighted Obama’s lack of qualifications, especially on foreign policy.

It turns out that on the most important foreign policy challenge of his first term, Obama wasn’t even around to take such a call.

The Weekly Standard reported today on Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony this morning before Congress. Panetta said that Obama was absent on the evening of September 11, 2012, when four Americans were killed in Benghazi.

Panetta said that, other than his previously scheduled 5 PM meeting with the president, he did not hear at all from the White House on September 11th, and that the commander-in-chief left everything, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the besieged Americans, “up to us.”

This news, revealed under oath, doesn’t square with statements by the White House in the days after the Benghazi attack. David Axelrod, one of Obama’s closest advisors, told an interviewer at the time, “As I said, immediately when word of the attack came, the president was meeting with his top national security folks. He was talking to them well into the night. He was in touch with them during the day…[and] during the next day as well.”

According to Panetta’s testimony today, he told Obama about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi at the 5 pm meeting on September 11. But not only did Panetta not hear from Obama the rest of the night, he didn’t hear from anyone else in the upper tier of Obama's national security team. Not Secretary of State Clinton. Not Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey.

Where was Obama on the evening of September 11th as four Americans were being slaughtered in Libya? Perhaps he was busy preparing remarks for the fundraisers he headlined in Las Vegas the following day.

Australian Gun Law Update

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

• Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent
• Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria lone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns'.

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

Will you be one of the sheep to turn yours in?

WHY? You will need it.

ONLY IN AMERICA

TOP-11 "ONLY IN AMERICA" OBSERVATIONS
BY A CANADIAN

1. Only in America could the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
2. Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black.
3. Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4. Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5. Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just “magically” become American citizens.
6. Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7. Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8. Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

I’d like to add that only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up, yet not say anything about the fact that it’s actually the government who is gouging the people by continuing to collect a 11% tax on oil while the oil producing companies only get a whopping 3% profit.

9. Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year - for total spending of $7 Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10. Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.
11. Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience ... and a complete failure at his job ... be reelected.