Obama Demands $1.1 Trillion Ransom–or He Will Crash Global Economy

Breitbart

President Barack Obama is demanding a $1.1 trillion “ransom”–or else he will not allow the debt ceiling to be raised. That’s the effective offer on the table from the president and Senate Democrats. They have now refused to pass a “clean” short-term debt ceiling hike unless Republicans agree to reverse the “sequester” spending cuts in the 2011 Budget Control Act that were enacted–at Obama’s suggestion–to end the last debt ceiling crisis.

The president, who has invited congressional leaders to conduct talks at the White House Monday afternoon, still continues to insist that he “will not pay a ransom for Congress reopening the government and raising the debt limit.” Yet he and his party are the ones insisting on a “ransom,” now that Republicans appear to be in the mood to compromise after opinion poll results last week showed them losing politically in the showdown.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has claimed that the sequester dispute means that Democrats and Republicans are only $70 billion apart in budget negotiations. That is a blatant lie, as the total value of the sequester over ten years is $1.1 trillion. Democrats do not want a reprieve for one year–they want the entire sequester canceled so that they can continue spending on such priorities as the annual cowboy poetry festival in Nevada.

Last week, President Obama asked the press to “imagine if a Democratic Congress threatened to crash the global economy unless a Republican president agreed to gun background checks or immigration reform.” Now the White House and a Democrat-controlled Senate are threatening exactly that–unless Republicans agree to fork over $1.1 trillion, paid for with new “revenues” (i.e. taxes) on the American people. Ransom, indeed

Obamacare Website Is Crashing Because Dems Don’t Want You to Know How Expensive the Plan Is

Gateway Pundit

Many experts believe the Obamacare website is dysfunctional because Democrats don’t want you to know how expensive the plans are.

The average plan for men will be 99 percent more expensive, and 62 percent more expensive for women. Democrats own this. Forbes reported: A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away. HHS didn’t want users to see Obamacare’s true costs “Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.) As you know if you’ve been following this space, Obamacare’s bevy of mandates, regulations, taxes, and fees drives up the cost of the insurance plans that are offered under the law’s public exchanges. A Manhattan Institute analysis I helped conduct found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. Because you have to enter so much personal information before you receive a price quote, a well known and respected local conservative speculates that healthcare.gov could quote prices based on yourincome or even political beliefs.

– See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/obamacare-website-is-crashing-because-dems-dont-want-you-to-know-how-expensive-the-plan-is/#sthash.dNtrLaKY.dpuf

With Sarah Palin at the WWII Memorial

Fred Gedrich’s photos:

Family Security Matters

With  Sarah Palin at WWII Memorial; photos of Americans killed  in  Benghazi at WWII  Memorial; at Korean War Memorial with two uniformed Army  troops mocking the  shutdown; and the arrival of WWII Vets from Puget Sound at  their memorial which  was the highlight of the day.  Proud to have been  able to be with the thousands  of people who gathered on a rainy Sunday morning  to protest against President  Obama’s insensitive closure of these sacred  memorials to Veterans who have given  so much in service to country and who have  kept our nation safe and  free. 

Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/with-sarah-palin-at-the-wwii-memorial?f=must_reads#ixzz2hmcMEP27 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

OUTRAGEOUS! U.S. Army Lieutenant Sentenced To 20 Years In Ft. Leavenworth For Killing Taliban Scouts Helping To Set Up Ambush of His Platoon…

Weasel Zippers

Sickening beyond words.

Via Allen West:

If the fact that the Obama Administration has blocked aging veterans from visiting the World War II memorial and denied death gratuity benefits for fallen warriors doesn’t seem to indicate contempt for our military, how about this most recent story?

Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, a 28-year-old combat leader in the 82d Airborne Division from Celeste, Texas was recently found guilty of two counts of murder in Afghanistan and sentenced to 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth.

The story of First Lieutenant Lorance has not been covered by a single major media source.

In July 2012, Lorance was ordered to take command of a platoon in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar, a region where I also spent two and a half years training and advising the Afghan National Army. The platoon Lorance now commanded had lost its previous leader to enemy attack.

During a patrol in enemy territory, Lorance ordered a marksman to engage two unarmed Taliban fighters on a motorcycle operating as scout spotters.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, a common enemy tactic is for unarmed fighters on motorcycles with cell phones to track unit movements. In fact, enemy combatants had previously used the tactics against this same platoon.

Lorance, who was operating in a combat zone, saw the scout spotters and assessed them as a threat to his platoon. Aerial surveillance later backed up Lorance’s on-the-ground assessment.

It seems obvious that enemy scouts reporting a unit position and movements in order to facilitate an ambush would define “hostile intent.” But not according to the watered-down Rules of Engagement with which our warriors must contend.

In little more than a year, First Lieutenant Lorance was tried and sentenced to prison. Swift justice to be sure, but why then did it take four years to try and convict Nidal Malik Hasan, who fatally shot 13 and wounded more than 30 during his 2009 rampage at Ft Hood Texas?

The irony of the dilemma currently facing our troops, those who have volunteered to protect and defend our freedoms, is appalling. Shall they fight and kill the enemy but then risk imprisonment because of insidious rules by lawyers?

Keep reading…