Monday, November 21, 2016

ObamaCare Is The Reason Why Clinton Lost in 2016

One of the major reasons why Clinton lost the 2016 election was because of ObamaCare. 

There were two October surprises that rocked the Clinton Campaign. 

The first October surprise was the letter from the Director of the FBI stating that they found additional emails that required further review. 

The second October surprise came on October 24th, 2016 when the federal government informed Americans all over the country that they would be whacked with double-digit Obamacare premium increases. Americans woke up to news headlines like “Obamacare Premiums to Soar 22%.

Although the FBI announcement rocked the Clinton Campaign badly, it didn't have a direct affect on people's lives. Director Comey's letter confirmed what people already knew about Hillary Clinton as a dishonest, corrupt, unethical politician. The government's announcement on increases in ObamaCare premiums did affect the daily lives of the voters because it hit them right in the wallet. 

Trump won states that traditionally lean Democratic in presidential elections because of the Obamacare premium increase. Take a look at the premium increases in these states. 

Minnesota: 59%
Wisconsin: 16%
Pennsylvania: 33%
Michigan: 16.7%

Naturally, the voters were outraged by the  skyrocketing costs of ObamaCare.

To make matters worse for Hillary Clinton, she took credit for ObamaCare by claiming she was the inspiration for ObamaCare as seen in this tweet put out by the Clinton Campaign. 

Surprisingly, Hillary Clinton was actually telling the truth to the American voter. The inspiration for ObamaCare came from Hillary Rodham Clinton and not Mitt Romney. She was the inspiration for ObamaCare.

When Obama created his health care plan back in 2008, Democratic Barack Obama took it directly from Hillary Clinton. The only difference between Hillary Clinton's plan and Barack Obama's Health Care plan was that her plan included a mandate and his didn't. Later, Obama would end up incorporating Clinton's mandate into ObamaCare. This means that 100% of ObamaCare came from Hillary Clinton.

Back in 2013, I predicted that ObamaCare would be a huge liability for Hilary Clinton's 2016 campaign. I was right because she could never distance herself from ObamaCare if she wanted to because Obama's health care plan was her plan in its entirety. In the end, her own health care plan cost her the Presidency.


Tuesday, March 8, 2016

Did Mitt Romney Recently File Documents To Run In 2016?

People have long suspected that Mitt Romney wanted to run in 2016. It appears that the inevitable has happened. See the document below. 
On second thought...it appears that Mitt didn't file any documents to run in 2016. 

If you look at the document, This could be just an update of his address, not a filing for candidacy. Mitt's organization still exists and if his address is changed, he is required to notify the FEC. The other thing that is a bit strange is the dates on the form. One date reads 10/26/2015 while further down on the form says 01/30/2016. The date seems odd for someone who is deciding to run for President. Finally, the address appears to be bogus. 

Mitt Romney has repeatedly said he won't run for President in 2016. But he has said that he's willing to accept the GOP nomination if a brokered convention happens Republican National Convention later this year. On the other hand, Mitt has said that he will eventually endorse Rubio, Cruz or Kasich sometime in the future. Mitt might be tipping his hand on who he's endorsing by doing robocalls on behalf of Rubio in Florida.

Mitt might be laying the ground work for himself in the event that there is a brokered convention and become the GOP or he might not be doing that at all and simply endorse a candidate. The point is that Mitt Romney is keeping people confused and guessing so that people aren't sure exactly what he's up to.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Did Mitt Romney just admit that RomneyCare was the inspiration for ObamaCare?

The media is buzzing over Mitt Romney's recent statement about RomneyCare and ObamaCare. This is what he said
Romney also credited Mr. Stemberg with persuading him to push for health care reform in Massachusetts when he was governor.
Romney recalled that shortly after he was elected, Mr. Stemberg asked him why he ran for governor. Romney said he wanted to help people, and Mr. Stemberg replied that if he really wanted to help, he should give everyone access to health care, which Romney said he hadn’t really considered before.
“Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”
What Mitt Romney said was that Tom Stemberg was the guy that got the ball rolling on the issue of improving access to health insurance. Mitt Romney didn't say that his plan was the source for Obama's plan. He simply mean Tom was the guy who got the snowball rolling down the hill and it grew from a state issue to a national issue.

Mitt Romney should have thought carefully when he spoke because it didn't come out the way he intended for it to come out.  As a result, everyone is now claiming that Mitt Romney is now admitting that RomneyCare was the inspiration for ObamaCare. 
 
The truth is Mitt Romney's health care plan was not the inspiration for ObamaCare. The idea was cribbed from Hillary Clinton
For one thing, Obama adopted Hillary's plan to the extent that ObamaCare should probably be called HillaryCare. There were similarities, because again, Obama and Hillary had no ideas of their own, they were vomiting up the dregs of liberal think tanks handfed to them by staffers.



Liberals actually blasted the Obama plan because it was looser, it didn't come with mandates or compel people to buy health insurance.


Here, let Paul Krugman tell it like it was: "The Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care."

And then Obama turned around and adopted mandates. HillaryCare became ObamaCare.



At a primary debate, Hillary complained that "Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care whether they could afford it or not."



And Obama countered, "I have consistently said that Senator Clinton's got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better. But I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar." (Source.)

The truth is this:

1) RomneyCare and ObamaCare are NOT the same.

2) Obama did NOT use RomneyCare as a template for his health care plan.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Hillary Clinton's Achilles Heel for 2016

Hillary Clinton has announced her candidacy today via social media. Her decision to jump in the 2016 race has never been a secret ever since she lost the 2008 election and when she agreed to join the Obama Administration. In fact, people were talking about her running ever since Bill Clinton left the White House back in 2001. 

I don't know why Hillary Clinton is running. I don't think most Americans know why either. Why would someone who has had a long history of corruption, scandal, lies, and unethical behavior be running? Even if you discount her past, she is currently mired in a few scandals and foreign policy blunders from her time working as Secretary of State under President Obama. Whenever she announces her candidacy today, she will be starting off under a huge cloud of suspicion. 

Now that she's running, she will have to convince voters to TRUST her. That is a huge hurdle for her to overcome. In fact, it will be the main weakness of her candidacy for which she may never overcome despite the millions in campaign donations she will raise, the vast army of campaign advisors and a team of slick marketing staff. 

Her weakness is of her own making and she's been developing it for years. She has never cultivated trust from the American voter. Nor does he seem interested in doing so. The prime example is her work in the State Department when she was doing official State Department business using private email addresses and had all these emails hosted on a private server. Her server did not even have the minimum protections against hackers, foreign governments and criminals. Her actions were in violation of State Department policy and US federal law. Not only were her actions illegal and unethical, her actions placed America's security in jeopardy when she failed to place security measures on her servers to prevent spies and criminals from hacking into her server and reading her emails.

Isn't it just a coincidence that someone or some organization successfully hacked the White House due to a weak link at the State Department. Now, who could that weak link be? In fact, it is reported that the Russians have had access to the State Department computers for years.The White House and the State Department are being intentionally vague on how the White House was hacked and how the Russians have had full reign over State Department computers for years.

There is also speculation that Hillary Clinton conducted her private emails outside the review of Congress so that she could conduct communications regarding Benghazi and other potential governmental diplomatic and military actions. For me, I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary's emails showed that she joined in on the discussions regarding the targeting of conservative organizations and individuals by the IRS. But that's just speculation on my part.

However, it is possible that we will never know the content of her private emails because Hillary wiped her server CLEAN so that no one will ever know who she talked with as Secretary of State. She wiped it clean so that the media, non-profit watchdog organizations and Congressional oversight would never be able to review her emails. Again, how can the public TRUST her? 

Hillary Clinton got caught (more likely she was outed) engaging in illegal and dishonest behavior never worked on repairing that breach of trust with the American people. She doesn't seem sorry or remorseful about what she did. She has made no attempt to cooperate with Congress or be upfront with the oress. She has been trying to spin and manage her way out of this problem. To me, it doesn't seem like she doesn't care that her integrity is now under question. Otherwise, she wouldn't be jumping in for 2016. 

To me, it seems pretty brazen for someone like Hillary Clinton to want to run in 2016 when there are numerous examples of breaches of public trust, corruption and criminality. It is like having Walter White or Al Capone decide he's running for President in 2016. Do you think that if Hillary Clinton successfully wins the 2016 general election and becomes the next president, that she will all of a sudden be an honest, ethical and transparent President? No. 

Everything that people hate about politicians and government can be found in Hillary Clinton. She is very much a Washington D.C. insider. She is an incompetent, dishonest, corrupt and secretive politician. She supports a government that is bigger, more intrusive and less transparent. She pretends that she is a regular person that faces every day troubles yet she is a wealthy woman who obtained her wealth by questionable means. She has no success that she can point to as Senator of New York or as Secretary of State. Her record in government is one of one failure after another. Every Democratic and Republican 2016 candidate will focus on her record and accomplishments. However, her real weakness lies is her own character.

The most important issue of 2016 may boil down to one simple question: can we trust Hillary Clinton to be President?

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Johnathan Guber Also Lying About RomneyCare

Last week, a video of Jonathan Gruber was uncovered showing him talking about "ripping off" the Federal government to the tune of $400 million a year to finance RomneyCare. Watch the clip below:


Whenever someone comes out with a video clip that purports to show something scandalous, its better to see the entire clip. Watch Gruber's entire lecture below: 


Many conservatives see the short clip and think this is evidence that RomneyCare is just as slimy as ObamaCare. However, John Gibson of Fox News says that the short clip doesn't reveal the full story:
"...Gruber has also solved one mystery and and at the same moment created another. The first mystery: why exactly Obamacare is NOT a copy of Romneycare. Second mystery: why couldn’t Romney explain this simple difference when Obama claimed in the debate that his plan was just a national version of Romney’s.
Here’s what Gruber revealed: Romneycare was based on the fact the state of Massachusetts, courtesy the late Senator Teddy Kennedy, had a huge slush fund of federal money for the healthcare of the uninsured in that state, which Romney saw as an opportunity to use more efficiently funding universal coverage in Massachusetts. No other state had that advantage, no other state had a federal pot of money which in Massachusetts was $400,000,000, almost half a billion dollars.
Obamacare didn’t have that slush fund, either. Multiplied by the scale of 49 other states, Obamacare had to come up with trillions of dollars and that’s where the endless taxes on your health care comes in. That’s why your premiums and deductibles are so high. That’s why you are paying an onerous tax on a health plan the Obamacare designers, including especially Jonathan Gruber, consider too good, the so called Cadillac plans. That’s why Obamacare taxes your insurance company, which then passes on the cost to you.
Gruber glosses over this fact of the Massachusetts slush fund…mostly."
The truth is that Governor Mitt Romney did not rip the Federal Government off. The $400 million was money that was already provided to the state long before Mitt Romney entered into office. Not once did the Federal Government ever object to what Mitt Romney did because there was no problem here. The federal government was aware of it and apparently gave its blessing to do this. In fact, the Washington Post demolishes Gruber's claim that the Federal government was ripped off and verifies that the government gave its blessing to the money to fund RomneyCare:
"He's [Gruber] talking about the deal from the federal government that helped Massachusetts set up its 2006 coverage expansion, which later became the basis for the Affordable Care Act. It's hardly a secret. And Bush re-authorized the deal in 2008.
The short story is basically this: Massachusetts, since the late 1990s, had been receiving special Medicaid funds through a waiver to fund care for populations the program traditionally didn't cover. In 2005, President George W. Bush wanted to end that funding, worth about $350 million. But Kennedy, working with Romney, put together a deal to keep the funds and then some by expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to help low-income people purchase private insurance. The Bush administration signed off on that deal, giving us Romneycare, which then gave us Obamacare.That state Medicaid waiver has been renegotiated three times since then, including earlier this month."
 In other words, the late Senator Ted Kennedy was able to convince the Federal government to  provide this money for the purposes of assisting the uninsured in Massachusetts long before Mitt Romney became Governor. What Mitt did was that he lawfully diverted that money into funding RomneyCare to assist those who did not have insurance. The money was already there. Mitt Romney just found a more cost effective and efficient way to use that money for the same purpose. If the $400 million was being provided to the state to help uninsured people, why not use that money in a much more efficient way to help those without insurance?

Mitt Romney explained the entire process of how he developed his health care plan for the state of Massachusetts in his book, "No Apology: Believe in America." This is where John Gibson (and the rest of the media) gets it wrong. Mitt Romney did explain this difference. But people didn't want to listen or they weren't paying attention. Especially many conservatives. Many of them bought the lie that RomneyCare is the same as ObamaCare. This lie was enough to turn them off to Romney. They haven't done the research or the fact checking to see that RomneyCare is not even remotely the same as ObamaCare. And these conservatives don't want to take the time to learn the facts.

In fact, the funding scheme for RomneyCare is one of the central reasons why Mitt Romney said his health care plan for Massachusetts could not work at the national level. Johnathan Gruber makes this point for Mitt Romney without realizing it:
"The problem is there is no way to say that," Gruber said. "Because they're the same f[******] bill. He just can't have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it's the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying. The only big difference is he didn't have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes."
There you have it folks. The reason why RomneyCare cannot be done at the federal level is because of the unique funding scheme for Mitt's health care plan. In fact, Massachusetts was the only state in the nation to receive the special Medicaid funds for the purposes of helping uninsured citizens. Which is why RomneyCare could not be replicated in other states or at the federal level. It was a unique case. Had Massachusetts not been receiving this money since the 1990s, Mitt Romney would not have created RomneyCare. The funding from the federal government makes RomneyCare possible and unique.

The fact that RomneyCare was paid for by funds that were already being provided by the federal government is not a trivial difference. It is a major one. In fact, it is a crucial difference. Johnathan Gruber knows that. And he should have known that's why RomneyCare cannot be done at the federal level unless additional taxes are involved. Instead, the Obama Administration and Johnathan Gruber had to continuously lie and deny that ObamaCare was a tax. Implementing taxes are necessary to make ObamaCare a reality.  Had Obama been honest about this to the American people, ObamaCare would have died immediately.

That is why Obama and Gruber continually lie that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same. They are not the same on so many levels and for so many reasons. But the major and significant difference between ObamaCare and RomneyCare is the funding scheme.

Jonathan Gruber arrogantly lied by omitting the fact the $400 million was money that the Federal Government had already given to Massachusetts. RomneyCare didn't rip off the federal government.

ObamaCare program did rip off the American people. People are now paying more in health care costs and in taxes. And Obama and Gruber lied to you about the true funding and costs of the program.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and The American Flag of Independence

Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied s request for an en banc hearing in the controversial case where school administrators at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif. told four students in to go home for wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo back in May of 2010. At each stage of the case, various courts have sided with the school in refusing to allow students to wear shirts with an American Flag on a day when Mexico celebrates its independence from Spain. The case will probably go to the United States Supreme Court.

Interestingly enough, Miley Cyrus might be going to jail for when she had one of her dancers whip her prosthetic butt with a Mexican flag during her concert in Mexico. Amazingly, her concert was on Mexican Independence Day. The penalty for disrespecting the Mexican flag isn't that harsh:
"Apparently Mexican officials are super sensitive about disrespecting national symbols so the congress of the state of Nuevo Leon wants her prosecuted. The crime of desecration carries a $1,200 fine and a 36 hour jail sentence."
If Miley Cyrus had done a concert in the US with someone whipping her butt with an American flag, people would be praising her as her act as being artistic and brave. In fact, people have a constitutional right to desecrate the American flag. The United States Supreme Court decided in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning as a protest constituted free speech that was protected by the Constitution. But in Mexico, it appears that there is no such right to desecrate the Mexican flag. 

It is strange that Americans have a right to burn our own flag but we cannot proudly display the United States flag in many places. Americans have to go to court to establish their right to display their U.S. flag. American citizens shouldn't have to fight for this basic right. To me, it seems as though the judicial and educational system is sending a message to the American people that it is good to disrespect our flat but bad to be proud of it. In other words, we are encouraged to scorn the US flag and to not be proud of it. I find that to be a troubling message that our government is telling its own people. It is no wonder that there growing number of Americans who do not respect our flag and view it in a negative way.

Most nations have some kind of law against desecrating the national flag. I support Mexico in opening a criminal investigation on Miley Cyrus. (I also support people desecrating the flag of any known terrorist organization such as ISIS.) Whether she had a right or artistic license to do what she did is up for debate. However, Mexico has every right to expect people, especially non-Mexican citizens, to respect their flag in their country. If only Mexicans living in the United Sates would respect the American flag.

The judicial system erred in holding the four students should not have been removed from school for wearing the US flag. I have no problem with people from other countries displaying their flag here in the America. They have a constitutional right as a matter of free speech to do that. But when a non-citizen is guest in another country, or is living in that country or trying to obtain citizenship in that country, the national flag trumps the flag of their homeland and that national flag deserves respect. Thus, Mexico has every right to be offended by her actions of disrespecting their flag and to hold her accountable by their laws.

If only the judicial system would understand that the national flag of the United States trumps the flag of Mexico. I understand they want to celebrate Mexican Independence Day in America and that have every right to do so. However, they don't have a right to be offended when American students want to wear the American flag on Mexican Independence Day. American citizens should not have the right to wear their own flag be curtailed because that speech might cause non U.S. citizens to react violently to it. 

Mexico has every right to expect Americans to be respectful to their flag. The United States have every right to expect Mexicans to respect our flag, even when Americans are displaying it on Mexican Independence Day. After all, it was the American Revolution that the inspiration to other nations in the Americas, including Mexico, to seek independence from European rule. In fact, the American revolution prompted many Latin American countries to borrow concepts from the U.S. Constitution once they obtained independence. Thus, Mexicans should not be upset with Americans wearing the US flag on Mexican Independence Day. Instead, they should be happy with it since America inspired their quest for independence. 

Americans and Mexicans should not forget that we have a common history of successfully rebelling against European rule. We should have mutual respect for each other's flag of independence. After all, the Mexican and United States are both American flags of independence.

Friday, June 20, 2014

10 Reasons Why the Washington Redskins Should Keep Their Name


The national debate over whether or not the name and logo of the Washington Redskins needs to be abandoned has been going on for a few years. However, there really shouldn't be a debate on this issue and the team should not cave to pressure on this issue. 

Here are the following reasons why the team should keep their name and logo: 
1. Most people don't that it was an Indian that designed the Redskins logo and the Indian leaders that approved it in 1971. One of those Indian Leaders was Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Mr. Wetzell's son, Don, explained that, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the state of Montana created that (“Redskins”) logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it’s something to be proud of.”

2.  Before they were the Washington Redskins, they were the Boston Redskins, and the Boston Braves before that. The team name "Redskins" has been around for a long time and no one really objected to it. Yet, the name didn't become "offensive" until recently within the last 5 or 10 years.

3. There's a poll that was taken back in 2004 that showed only 9% of Natives Americans were offended by the Redskins name. Furthermore, the same poll also found "13% of Indians with college degrees said the name is offensive, compared with 9% of those with some college and 6% of those with a high school education or less. Among self-identified liberals, 14% found the term disparaging, compared with 6% of conservatives."

4.  The US Patent and Trademark recently canceled the team's trademark. Yet, the same thing happened to the Redskins back in 1999. A panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team's trademarks in 1999 on the grounds that the name disparages American Indians in violation of federal trademark law. Yet, in 2004, a federal judge ruled the team can keep its name, finding insufficient evidence to conclude it is an insult to American Indians. I suspect that those who are making a second attempt to have the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancel the team name will fail even though they will try hard. They will shop around to find a judge who will be sympathetic to their cause. However, the 2004 decision is Res Judicata and will help the Washington Redskins alot.
5. The government is involving itself on an issue it has no authority or right insert itself into. For American's who are concerned over government overreach, this is just another example of abuse of government power. Clearly, our government is trying to pressure the team into dropping the name and mascot of the team.  It is as if the government is saying, "Say, that's a nice football team you have here, I'd hate to see something happen to it." The US government is clearly using its muscle to get the outcome it wants on a private issue. That is very disconcerting.
6. 71% of Americans think the name is not offensive and that the team should keep their name. Those who push to have the team abandon the name are clearly in the minority.

7. There are plenty of other sports teams with Indian names. There's the KC Chiefs (Football), Cleveland Indians (Baseball), Chicago Blackhawks (Hockey) and the Atlanta Hawks (NBA). There are colleges with team names such as the University of Utah Utes, The Florida State University Seminoles and the Golden State Warriors. There has been no outrage over these teams names. The outrage towards the Washington State Redskins is extremely selective in light of the fact that we have other teams with Indian names. 

8. This controversy reveals the stupidity behind liberal identity politics. There are plenty of other teams that could be offensive to other people and yet no outrage there. I think there are Irish Americans people who are offended Notre Dame's Fighting Irish with their mascot that looks like he's looking for a drunken brawl. When did Americans start having a thin skin and being offended over stupid petty issues such as this? For me, Political Correctness is the prime suspect for why Americans have developed a thin skin.

9. I find it funny that most of the people who are "offended" by the Redskins name or who are "empathetic" towards the Native Americans on this issue are people who are NOT Native Americans. We have people who are "offended" by the team name and they have no right to be offended because they are not Native Americans especially when a majority of Native Americans are NOT offended by the name. If we are going to be consistent applying liberal identity politics on this issue, then we should be concerned about non-Native Americans being upset over an an issue for which they are not a member of and how they are trying to stir up the American public and Native Americans to be upset over this team name. We have mostly non-Native Americans trying to tell Native Americans how they should feel. In the liberal/progressive mindset, that should be problematic. Yet it isn't.

10. Of all the issues that face America (and the world), we are obsessed over this stupid controversy. If we are truly going to be concerned for the welfare and feelings of Native Americans, we should not be worried about the name of a football team but we should protesting the fact that many Native Americans live, not of their own design, in poverty on reservations. I suspect that this is a feel good protest for liberals because its easier to address this issue than to address the real issue of what is happening in American's reservations.
In the end, I don't think the Redskins will lose their name or logo or mascot. At least they shouldn't. The name isn't offensive. It wasn't offensive back then and it is not offensive now. Most of the people who are "offended" by the Redskins name or who are "empathetic" towards the Native Americans on this issue are people who are NOT Native Americans. Thus, I caution people to beware of those who misuse the concept of "offensive" for their own agenda when it is clear that there is no offense to be taken here. I suspect that there is some thing larger happening here and that there's something more than just offensiveness over a team name. What that agenda is, I'll leave my readers to speculate on. Ask yourself, why are people making this an issue when a majority of Americans and Native Americans are in united in support of keeping Redskin name and logo?

Edit: A reader pointed that if the Redskins should change their name, so should the state of Oklahoma.  Another reader pointed out that that many of the names given to military helicopters are based on Native American tribes.