Current Events - November 3, 2013

Dear Liberal…Here’s Why I’m So Hostile

By Jeremy N Choate
This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues.  That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature.  Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent.  Here’s my vent…
Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically.  No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers.  I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to.  If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears.  If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you.  If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at.  If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy.  If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading.  Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think.  Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government.  As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.
Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation.  You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor.  The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem — it’s our attitude towards the solution.  We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved.  For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began.  You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away.  We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,

Government is not the solution to our problems;  government is the problem.

Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are.  While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect.  However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service.  There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.
Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda.  First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”.  In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress.  What is the ideal towards which you are striving?  An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away.  So, what is your ideal society?
Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy.  The rights that FDR cited are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you?  What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated?  These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”
I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America.  After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right?  Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human?  Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.
If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list — none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.  Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else.  Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens.  Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone.  A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet — and it is unconditional.
FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”.  It’s a list of demands.  If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me?  If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me?  If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?  
You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he?  If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not?  Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.
You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy.  It’s quite simple — your political beliefs are a threat to liberty — not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well.  I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.
How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask?  In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents.  If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you.  If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.
The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish.  You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom.  If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity.  If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally.  If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism.  If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea — you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor.  If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket — you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.  You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs.  You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens.  Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty — it’s an axiomatic truth.
What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur.  You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi.  Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.
I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom.  What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.
I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:

“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation.  In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up.  You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else.  In my society, you have the freedom to do that.
In your society, I don’t have the same freedom.  If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders.  In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it — why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you.  It’s nothing personal, necessarily.  If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest.  But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.
Bring it.

In Defense of the TEA Party

 By Tom DeWeese
Just a few years ago some American citizens came together to demand change. They were fed up with decades of out of control government growth; confiscation of their hard-earned income through ever-increasing taxes and unending regulations invading every aspect of their lives. Things were racing out of control.
Every aspect of American society was changing and not for the better. Freedoms and rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution – the founding document of our nation and law of the land, were disappearing. Elected representatives turned a deaf ear to concerned citizens. It seemed those in power simply didn't care. No matter the outcome of elections, nothing changed. There was a sense of hopelessness, helplessness and frustration as concerned citizens saw the America they loved disappearing.
The answer? Enter the TEA Party – declaring "Taxed Enough Already." It was time to make their voice heard. It was time to directly confront the government and demand that it stay within the confines of the Constitution that every single elected official at every level of government pledged to uphold.
They organized. They rallied. They confronted members of Congress at local meetings. And their voices were heard. The TEA Party movement spread across the nation like wild fire. Many people were excited that finally the national debate was about concerns over the ever-expanding government. Some officials embraced the TEA Party. Some feared it.
Most who participated were political novices, experiencing their first direct activism. Concerned citizens, many were just parents who had spent their time raising the kids, and had been unaware of just how massive the government had gotten. They were about to get the shock of their lives.

• The Federal Reserve is a private organization that isn't officially part of the Federal Government. Yet it controls the money supply and controls interest rates. The TEA Party demanded that it be audited so we could all see its wealth, its holdings, and how it makes its decisions that directly affect our lives. Congress refused to demand such an audit. The TEA Party thought that was wrong and demanded that the Fed be held accountable to the American people. For that action the TEA Party was vilified for rocking the boat.
• The TEA Party demanded that out-of-control spending be reigned in, waste stopped and taxes lowered. Supporters of big government raced to the microphones to declare that such demands would hurt the poor and deny them programs that were necessary for them to live. RACIST, came the charge against the TEA Party.
• The TEA Party expressed opposition to immigration "reform" laws which would reward those who crossed our borders illegally, resulting in millions flooding into our nation, gaining free hospital care, education and welfare, while denigrating American culture and quality of life. The TEA Party thought that was wrong and simply demanded that Congress enforce the very laws it had created. Again came the charge against the TEA Party of RACISM.
• In communities across the nation, TEA Party activists began to oppose regulations designed to damage or even eliminate private property rights, usually under the excuse of protecting the environment. Many such policies are being enforced through the establishment of non-elected boards, regional governments, and local planning councils, denying citizen input. When local citizens attend public meetings to express opposition, as is done in representative governments, officials many times simply ignore them, refusing to engage in discussion, accusing them of perpetrating groundless conspiracy theories. Some citizens have even been removed bodily from such meetings simply for expressing opposition. When in frustration of not being heard, TEA Party activists show up in protest, the head of the federal Environmental Protection Agency labeled them, "Jack Booted Thugs."
• One of the most recent fights in which the TEA Party has engaged is the nationwide enforcement of new federal education curriculum standards called Common Core. A study of the curriculum shows it contains a severe lack of history of the founding ideals of America and a negative focus on free enterprise. But Common Core contains a strong focus on diversity, social justice and Globalism. There is very little actual academic instruction in Common Core. Some critics describe it as being more about creating a cadre of social activists than an educated society. When TEA Party activists begin studying the curriculum and asking questions of school administrators, they are dismissed as Far Right lunatic fringe nuts.
• It is true that most activists in the TEA Party not only believe that the Constitution is the law of the land, but are also devout Christians. As such, they are very concerned by government actions to ban or shut down Christian activities. It started years ago with the banning of Christmas decorations or Manger scenes on public property. Many ministers are afraid to speak out about current events from the pulpit for fear of retribution from the government. Yet, there is a drive to teach Islam in the public schools, where children are actually given assignments on the subject. There seems to be few restrictions on that religion in public life. Naturally, the TEA Party thinks that is wrong and cries foul over the unbalanced situation. The charge against the TEA Party is Intolerance!
• And then there is Obamacare. Says Nancy Pelosi and other supporters of this monster, there are millions of uninsured people in this nation and we need to fix that. Their solution is to force most of those millions to buy government- sanctioned insurance at exorbitant rates. Of course, the reason most of those people are uninsured in the first place was because they can't afford it. Now, under Obamacare, they must buy it or pay a fine – even though to do so means no food on the table, or perhaps outright bankruptcy. When you are a compassioned liberal on a mission, facts don't matter. Companies that have decided not to hire new people, or only add part time people, because of the outrageous costs, are attacked as heartless. Of course, the Obama Administration changes the rules daily as they exempt labor unions, Congress itself, and certain companies who perhaps just happened to have donated to his campaign. The entire nation is in turmoil over this law that not a single member of Congress read before voting on it (because no printed copy existed). No wonder the TEA Party and about 70% of the rest of the nation oppose it. Yet, for that opposition, again the TEA Party faces the charge of RASCISM.

These are some of the issues that the TEA Party sees as problems in America. They focus on fairness, fiscal responsibility and fears of government overreach. Yet the attacks against the TEA Party are that it is a fanatical fringe element of the Republican Party. Why? Are Americans no longer allowed to speak out on issues? Is political debate to be outlawed? Are we just expected to shut up and take whatever certain elements of our society deem proper?
In the Congressional folly just witnessed by the nation over the government shutdown and debt limit, the news media vilified the TEA Party as the root of the problem. Senator Ted Cruz took the lead in trying to stop funding, and thereby enforcement, of Obamacare. He had very little backing from his own party. He was charged by the news media of trying to force a shutdown and thereby a default of the U.S. Government. The media referred to Cruz and other members of Congress who opposed Obamacare as a "TEA Party" fringe of the Republican Party.
It's interesting to note that as the news media announces the latest polls showing the drop in popularity of the Republicans or the President over the shut down debacle, they are also detailing polls showing that the battle led to a drop in the popularity of the TEA Party. Apparently, even as the news media wants to bury the TEA Party, obviously what it says matters. And the media is doing all it can to change that. Editorials are pounding on the TEA Party, blaming it for forcing the nation to the brink of collapse. In social gatherings (even some Conservative gatherings) one hears negative comments about TEA Party nuts. "If only those nuts would get out of the way."
Missing from most of these debates, polls and editorial charges so anxious to blame the TEA Party, are the facts that it was the Democrats who stonewalled while immediately labeling any new Republican proposal as dead on arrival. Obama refused to bargain.
Through the well-orchestrated charges against the Republican "fringe," and the clinking of Democrat glasses as they celebrate their "victory" over the TEA Party "nuts," almost unnoticed was an October 15th report in the New York Post, which revealed that, behind the scenes in Democrat circles, close Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett is being touted as the "architect" of the shutdown. Why? Because it was Jarrett who advised Obama that voters would mostly blame Republicans if the federal government was shut down. That fact would give the Democrats the perfect excuse to allow it to take back control of the House of Representatives. Bottom line- the TEA Party has been set up by professional operatives on the Left in both the Democrat and Republican parties, to take the fall
As this debate over the TEA Party rages, it is vital that Americans understand what the issue is all about. Why is the TEA Party so vilified? Why are Democrats, main stream Republicans, the news media and the Washington, DC establishment so desperate to kill the TEA Party? Why do they fear it so?
Why? Because the TEA Party represents a dedicated force that could change the future of the nation away from their well-laid plans for bigger and more powerful government control. The TEA Party asks the hard questions and won't accept the hot air coming out of government officials. The TEA Party actually believes that when a politician says something on the stump to get their votes – then he or she had better stick to those ideas when they get elected. What a concept!
The TEA Party is a throwback to those who founded this nation on the principle that individuals are born with their rights rather than being granted by government. And that government's job is to protect those rights at all costs. Such ideas in today's world are a threat to the drive for a well–ordered, well-controlled society. Individuals running amok are a threat and must be kept in their place.
And so, the attack dog media constantly picks at the TEA Party, trying to show its dark side. Who is its leader, they demand. Who speaks for the TEA? In doing so, the TEA Party is then defined by that so-named leader. Is it Sarah Palin or Michelle Baughman? Then every negative thing that could be said about those two could be said about the TEA Party. It's a divide and conquer strategy. Destroy that so-called leader and you destroy the whole movement. Democrat candidates do the same thing in their campaign ads against any conservative opponent. And so, for a news media that can't seem to find any negative facts about a single government program or Democrat, it digs and digs into the TEA Party to find who leads it? Who funds it? Where did it come from? What does it really want? All questions designed to destroy it.
Here's the fact that frustrates the media and the Washington establishment: there is no one leader of the TEA Party. That is its strength. There are many individuals and local groups. It is a true grassroots movement with individual members and groups focused on a variety of issues depending on their location and concerns. There is only one connecting issue for every TEA Party group – a belief that the Constitution of the United States, the document that every elected official pledges to defend, is the law of the land and must be the deciding factor in every action taken by Congress and the federal government. It's as simple as that.
There is one question every American must now ask after having witnessed Obama and Harry Reid refusing to consider any proposal offered by the Republicans. Is there room in modern America for anyone to object to those in charge? Do Americans have a right to speak out and say no? Do Americans have a right to take action against those policies they oppose? Obama, Reid and others of their kind across the nation say no. Blind acceptance to their policies and ideas are the only acceptable way in their world. The technical term for such a state is tyranny.
If it frightens you that America, the land of the Free, has come to such a state, then take a good hard look. Realize what you face in the future if it is allowed to continue. Regardless of whether you agree with the issues or positions of the TEA Party, this is one movement that is protecting the right of opposition and freedom of speech for every American. They have been attacked, called lunatic fringe, racist, and just plain nuts, simply because they believe they have a right, as Americans, to speak out against policies enforced on them by an out of control government. And they don't buckle in the face of overwhelming opposition – because to do otherwise means the end of freedom. The TEA Party. 

God Bless the Conservative Warriors

By David Limbaugh
I just don’t understand it. Everywhere we turn, we conservatives are told we need to moderate, be less extreme, be more bipartisan. The public just wants us all to get along and solve our major problems together.  
...Yet Republican establishment politicians and center-right Beltway pundits pile on, constantly lecturing those of us to their right — those more eager to fight than surrender — to calm down, be more pragmatic and focus on the next election, when we can really show them. We must get ahold of ourselves and temper our passions. For if we stand up to this bully in the White House and give him some of his own medicine, if we fight for our principles to the point that the government shuts down, independents will turn away from us in droves, and we’ll never win any more elections.
...Republican Party insiders, strategists, operatives and head honchos seem particularly afflicted with the appeasement bug and are embarrassed by grass-roots conservatives, the tea party and intractable politicians such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, who refuse to blissfully join them in celebrating the glories of inaction and conciliation.
...I’m sorry, but we don’t share goals with these people, which Obama, in a rare moment of candor, admitted in his speech. They don’t have the best intentions in mind for America or Americans — at least not as I define best intentions. If the Republican Party apparatus won’t allow us to fight them aggressively now, some might say it’s time to find a new vehicle that will accommodate our commitment to conservatism. I don’t know about you, but I’m not willing to relinquish control of the GOP to those whose excessive time on the inside has clouded their perception as to what’s acceptable.
...It’s past time to put away the silly talk about working with a man who has no intention of working with anyone who retains any respect for the American system as we know it. To candy-coat Obama’s mendacity and destruction is to enable him — and disable America. Indeed, this mindless talk of bipartisanship and moderation serves as perfect cover for the true extremists — the people who are permanently transforming the United States of America.
Isn’t five years enough to convince all of us we must quit playing patsy with these statists and join together to oppose them with as much fervor as we can muster?
Godspeed to those with the clarity of vision to see what is happening and the courage to oppose it.

Barack Obama Disses American History: Refuses to attend 150th Anniversary of Gettysburg Address

November 19th marks the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, delivered by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. The address lasted barely two minutes, but it is regarded as one of the most powerful ever delivered. It celebrated the efforts of our forefathers who worked to build this nation based on liberty. It addressed a nation torn apart at that moment by a civil war and celebrated that we are nation with a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’.
Yet, on this historic 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, President Barack Obama will not be in attendance. Instead, he will send the Interior Secretary Sandy Jewell.

Carol Bond case showcases government run amok

By George F Will
This term the Supreme Court will rule on important subjects from racial preferences to restrictions on political speech, but its most momentous case, to be argued Tuesday, concerns the prosecution of a Pennsylvania woman who caused a chemical burn on a romantic rival’s thumb. The issue is: Can Congress’s powers, which supposedly are limited because they are enumerated, be indefinitely enlarged into a sweeping police power by the process of implementing a treaty?
...Bond’s brief for Tuesday argues that the power to ratify treaties neither confers upon Congress a general police power nor guarantees the validity of implementing legislation: “The absence of a national police power is a critical element of the Constitution’s liberty- preserving federalism.”
...No one argues that Bond intended to kill with the bright orange chemical her victim easily detected. And the federal government did not intervene in the Bond case because her action threatened a distinctly federal interest. It intervened because it thought it could: Government’s will to power is an irresistible force until it meets an immoveable object — a court. Which is why our Constitution requires not judicial deference but active judicial engagement in defense of its liberty-protecting structure. And why the case of the mildly injured thumb matters so much. 

Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution

The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.
Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond's case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
...The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.
"If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.

Did NBC Bury Its Own Reporter to Hide an Obama Lie?

....NBC News senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers found buried in the 2010 Obamacare regulations language predicting, “A reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate is forty percent to sixty-seven percent.” Myers’ reporting shows that Barack Obama knowingly lied to the American people for more than three years when he regularly insisted that those who like their current health insurance would be able to keep it under Obamacare.

UH OH! Obamacare exchange users report website directing them to other people’s private info

This could turn out to be a massive headache for the Obama administration. Users of the Obamacare exchange are reporting that the website is directing them to pages with the personal information of other people. 
from the Foundry:

Justin Hadley logged on to HealthCare.gov to evaluate his insurance options after his health plan was canceled. What he discovered was an apparent security flaw that disclosed eligibility letters addressed to individuals from another state.
“I was in complete shock,” said Hadley, who contacted Heritage after becoming alarmed at the breach of privacy.

How the ObamaCare Tax Penalty Works

Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.

2014 = $95 per person per year or 1% of your Income
2015 = $325 per person per year or 2% of your Income
2016 = $695 per person per year or 2.5% of your Income
2017 = Tax Penalty will increase by the rate of inflation going forward, or 2.5% of your Income

• The penalty is based on modified adjusted gross income.
• The total penalty for the taxable year cannot exceed the national average of the annual premiums of a bronze-level health insurance plan offered through the health insurance marketplaces.
• The maximum penalty per family is capped at no more than 300% of the minimum penalty (e.g. $695 x 300% = $2,085)
• Children under 18 are assessed at 50% of the minimum penalty.
• The penalty is pro-rated for the number of months you are without health insurance, though there is no penalty for a single gap in coverage of less than 3 months in a year.
• Health insurance plans will provide proof of coverage for their customers so as long as you have health insurance you don't have to worry about the details.

How many times did President Obama promise you could “keep your plan”?

Well, at least twenty-three times between 2008 and 2010.

Obama uses executive order in sweeping takeover of nation's climate change policies

Through the stroke of a pen, President Obama on Friday used his executive powers to elevate and take control of climate change policies in an attempt to streamline sustainability initiatives – and potentially skirt legislative oversight and push a federal agenda on states.
The executive order establishes a task force of state and local officials to advise the administration on how to respond to severe storms, wildfires, droughts and other potential impacts of climate change. The task force includes governors of seven states — all Democrats — and the Republican governor of Guam, a U.S. territory. Fourteen mayors and two other local leaders also will serve on the task force.
All but three of those appointed are Democrats. The task force will look at federal money spent on roads, bridges, flood control and other projects. It ultimately will recommend how structures can be made more resilient to the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and warming temperatures....
....But critics say the order has the potential to do much more, including:

•  Hold back money to communities unless they meet new standards on various items and agendas set by the federal government. For example, using new policies that will encourage communities to rebuild to pre-disaster standards instead of stronger ones.
•  A possible mandate to bring sweeping new changes to land use and resource policies.
•  More control and refocus of climate change data and use of it to push a new agenda into every priority of the federal government.
•  Create the need for a new internal organization for coordination efforts during a government sequestration and possible future shutdowns.

When Frogs Jump

By Daren Jonescu
...Progressives expose their true nature when their slowly heated pot is categorically rejected by the frogs. The mirage of "politics as usual," bipartisanship, and collegiality lasts only as long as men acquiesce in their own enslavement. Of course, a little public disagreement here and there is good for progressive optics, as it perpetuates the comforting illusion of open debate. But what if that little disagreement turns into an all-out refusal to go gently into that good night?
This, as I've explained before, is the plausible path to conservative victory before the final collapse. Make no mistake about it: this is not a happy or short road, nor one embarked upon lightly. Dispensing with "politics as usual" means exactly what it says, and more. It means initiating and sustaining a strategy -- more than that, a life -- of continual resistance and provocation, i.e., of living as free men and women under authoritarian rule. And when progressives are provoked into extreme frustration, their rage knows no bounds. No bounds. For, mainstream mythology aside, we are not talking about a civil political faction here; we are talking about the ancient tyrannical impulse that, in its peculiar modern manifestation, has concealed itself in the garb of "democratic" civility, with horrific success. Strip off that finery and witness the old bloody thuggery of ages past. These people will not stand for serious, sustained opposition. They will crush it, by any means necessary.
And this may be the secret to their undoing, in the long run.
...This method comes with no guarantee of success, although it does guarantee living up to the best of the human heritage, which is a worthy aim in itself. It requires making principled decisions that will affect every day of your life, to avoid allowing the progressives time to reassert their hypnotizing rhythm. The alternative, however -- the "realistic" approach recommended by the Washington establishment -- can only lead in one direction, and that direction is quickly running out of road.
Your refusal to sacrifice your dignity is driving them insane. Your civility in resisting their madness will unmask them. Your courage in refusing to be cowed by their increasingly open injustice may finally dissolve their illusion. When a tyrant's illusion is dissolved -- when he is understood as just another thug -- he no longer has friends among his countrymen, or at least has none worth having. No man with backbone will stand by as a revealed enemy devours his country.