Saturday, December 21, 2013

ObamaCare: From A Ruse To A Fraud [ The Lie of the Year and Somebody Needs to go to Prison ]

That is fraud in any book. The CEO of a private business who did what Obama did would be in jail. Why isn't he? ...see editorial "OBAMACARE IS FRAUD" below 
ruse - noun
noun: ruse; plural noun: ruses
1. an action intended to deceive someone; a trick.
fraud - noun
1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also: one who defrauds : cheat
b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
The whole damn thing is the public option. The federal government now runs the insurance market, dictating deadlines, procedures, rates, risk assessments, and coverage requirements.
National Review
Story of the Year
Insurance companies are rapidly becoming mere extensions of the federal government.
by Charles Krauthammer
Charles Krauthammer
The lie of the year, according to PolitiFact, is “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it.” But the story of the year is a nation waking up to just how radical Obamacare is — which is why it required such outright deception to get it passed in the first place.
Obamacare was sold as simply a refinement of the current system, retaining competition among independent insurers but making things more efficient, fair, and generous. Free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Free mammograms and checkups for you and me. Free (or subsidized) insurance for some 30 million uninsured. And, mirabile dictu, not costing the government a dime.
In fact, Obamacare is a full-scale federal takeover. The keep-your-plan-if-you-like-your-plan ruse was a way of saying to the millions of Americans who had insurance and liked what they had: Don’t worry. You’ll be left unmolested. For you, everything goes on as before.
That was a fraud from the very beginning. The law was designed to throw people off their private plans and into government-run exchanges where they would be made to overpay — forced to purchase government-mandated services they don’t need — as a way to subsidize others. (That’s how you get to the ostensible free lunch.)
It wasn’t until the first cancellation notices went out in late 2013 that the deception began to be understood. And felt. Six million Americans with private insurance have just lost it. And that’s just the beginning. By the Department of Health and Human Services’ own estimates, about 75 million Americans have plans that their employers would have the right to cancel. And millions of middle-class workers who will migrate to the exchanges and don’t qualify for government subsidies will see their premiums, deductibles, and co-pays go up.
It gets worse. The dislocation extends to losing one’s doctor and drug coverage, as insurance companies narrow availability to compensate for the huge costs imposed on them by the extended coverage and “free” services the new law mandates.
But it’s not just individuals seeing their medical care turned upside down. The insurance providers, the backbone of the system, are being utterly transformed. They are rapidly becoming mere extensions of the federal government.
Look what happened just last week. Health and Human Services unilaterally and without warning changed coverage deadlines and guidelines. It asked insurers to start covering people on January 1 even if they signed up as late as the day before and even if they hadn’t paid their premiums. And HHS is “strongly encouraging” them to pay during the transition for doctor visits and medicines not covered in their current plans (if covered in the patient’s previous — canceled — plan).
On what authority does a Cabinet secretary tell private companies to pay for services not in their plans and cover people not on their rolls? Does anyone even ask? The bill itself is simply taken as a kind of blanket authorization for HHS to run, regulate, and control the whole insurance system.
As if to make plain who is in charge, late Thursday night the administration did it again. It decreed that those with canceled insurance plans can now buy cheap “catastrophic” plans — that have been largely banned by Obamacare as inadequate and substandard. And HHS granted these same consumers the unique right to forgo health insurance entirely — without any penalty, something the insurance companies immediately denounced as destabilizing the risk pools of Obamacare’s own exchanges.
Three years ago I predicted that Obamacare would turn insurers into the lapdog equivalent of utility companies. I undershot. They are being treated as wholly owned subsidiaries. Take the phrase “strongly encouraging.” Sweet persuasion? In reality, these are offers insurers can’t refuse. Disappoint your federal master and he has the power to kick you off the federal exchanges, where the health-insurance business of the future is supposed to be conducted.
Moreover, if adverse selection drives insurers into a financial death spiral — too few healthy young people to offset more costly, sicker, older folks — their only recourse will be a government bailout. Do they really want to get on the wrong side of the White House, their only lifeline when facing insolvency?
I don’t care a whit for the insurance companies. They deserve what they get. They collaborated with the White House in concocting this scheme and are now being swallowed by it. But I do care about the citizenry and its access to a functioning, flourishing, choice-driven medical system.
Obamacare posed as a free-market alternative to a British-style single-payer system. Then, during congressional debate, the White House ostentatiously rejected the so-called “public option.” But that’s irrelevant. The whole damn thing is the public option. The federal government now runs the insurance market, dictating deadlines, procedures, rates, risk assessments, and coverage requirements. It’s gotten so cocky it’s now telling insurers to cover claims that, by law, they are not required to.
Welcome 2014, our first taste of nationalized health care.
Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2013 The Washington Post Writers Group.
By Coach Dave Daubenmire 
Fraud- Deception carried out for the purpose of achieving personal gain while causing injury to another party.
Although there are many different types and forms of fraud, basically the crime of fraud involves the use of deception for financial or personal gain. Fraud can also be committed to gain an unfair advantage or to damage another.
In order for criminal fraud to take place, in most states, the following elements of the crime must be proven:
A misrepresentation of material facts
The perpetrator knows or believes it is not true
The victim relies on the falsehood
It results in actual loss or damage.
Fraud can range from a street-level con game to insider fraud within the world's largest corporations. There are laws against tax fraud, insurance fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, credit card fraud, securities fraud and even religious and marriage fraud.
What about Governmental fraud?
Can someone please tell me why Bernie Madoff is in prison and Obama isn't?
If Americans permit this crime to go unpunished then our Republic is dead. Folks, this is not a political issue, despite what the talking heads on TV want you to believe. This is a legal issue.
Even in amoral America, fraud is still a crime. Lying about a contract is fraud and fraud legally cancels a contract. Obama Care is void because of the fraudulent way it was presented. Read here.
President Obama should go to jail.
But he is not the only one. The entire government complex is complicit in this crime. From watching “Dragnet” as a young child I learned that helping someone commit a crime is to be labeled an accessory. Accessories to crimes are also criminals.
Boehner is an accessory. So are McConnell, Pelosi, Reid, your congressman and senators, and the entire Supreme Court of the United States. When those assigned the duty of defending the laws, don't, we become a lawless nation. Everyone of those scoundrels swore an oath to the Constitution. They have violated it.
They are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Obama Care is fraud...plain and simple. Will no one do anything about it?
Come on now. If a policeman were to eyewitness a bank robbery would he not be derelict in his duty to not arrest the offender? If I can see the fraud...if you can see the you really think THEY can't see it? President Obama's lies constitute fraud.
“An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.” View
Nearly thirty times the President told the American people that “if you like your coverage you can keep it. If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor.”
Now we find out that we can't and that He knew that we couldn't. All of Congress knows he said it. All of the Justice Department knows he said it. All of the SCOTUS knows that he said it.
Elected officials are not exempt from our laws. In fact, they are held to a higher standard.
Our Constitution calls what Obama has done a “high crime.” What does that mean? What makes something a “high crime?”
“High Crime” does not refer to the severity of the crime that is committed, but rather to the position of the one who commits the crime. A “high crime” is a crime committed by a person of “high authority.” The “higher” the elected position, the “higher” the severity of the crime.
Bill Clinton “lied about sex” or at least that is what they told us. “Everyone lies about sex”, remember? But Bill Clinton wasn't just the average “Joe Blow” (sorry). His lying under oath was more serious because he had a “high” position. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard when they betray the public trust.
Sadly, those in “high positions” today use their power to excuse their law breaking. Holding the “highest” office in the land does not give the President the right to commit fraud. It does just the opposite. It raises the bar in regards to honesty. Lying is a betraying of the public trust.
Treason--Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
President Obama has committed treason.. Obama Care is aiding our enemies by destroying the economic stability of the citizens of this nation. Obama Care steals from the citizens.
No one will say it. No one has the guts to take a stand. This isn't a political issue; this is a national security issue. The liars all protect each other.
Our government is criminal. Let's face the facts. Why waste time trying to unravel hidden lies...Benghazi, NSA, IRS...when we won't deal with the obvious public lies?
We can't get lost in the weeds. The scandals in our government are legion, but every “investigation” leads down a bunny trail and permits the guilty to continue to lie and obfuscate. In the Obama administration the buck never stops.
But Obama Care is different. He lied to the American people regarding legislation that involves 1/6th of the US economy. That financial rape dwarfs anything Bernie Madoff could have hoped to have done. Millions will have to pay more based on a lie. That is fraud.
Let me make this so simple that even a public school graduate can understand.
The President and the Congress sold Obama Care to us on false pretenses. We have video of his lie. We have eyewitness accounts. We now know it was a lie, and we know that he knew it was untrue when he said it.
Folks, nothing else matters. His lie constitutes fraud--Deception carried out for the purpose of achieving personal gain while causing injury to another party—PERIOD.
In the private sector the Department of Justice would be all over it. In the government, the Department of Justice is part of the fraud. They throw Madoff in prison and cover for Obama.
America would be safer with Bernie Madoff in the White House.
Our government is lawless. The foxes are minding the chicken coop. If this crime is not punished America is nothing more than one of those Banana Republics we all used to laugh about.
Are there no honest judges in America? Are there no honest legislators in America? Where are the ACLJ, The Rutherford Institute, The Alliance Defense Fund, the Thomas More Society, et al? Rather than fighting over manger scenes and a picture of Jesus hanging in the halls of the school why won't they focus all of their power on removing the liar in the White House? He defrauded the citizens!
Our elected officials do not have the stones to do it. Once again the question must be asked, where are those who represent the Lord? Until we demand accountability from those who hold public office we will never right the ship.
The dude lied to us. It has caused millions of Americans great harm. If we don't stand up now Katy bar the door.
Silence is consent. Not to act is to act.
Obama Care was sold to us under false pretenses. It was a miss-representation of the product by the salesman selling it to us. That is fraud in any book. The CEO of a private business who did what Obama did would be in jail. Why isn't he?
And to top it all off...  Who could be worse than Bernie Madoff ?
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton roommate is a top executive at the company that earned the no-bid contract to build the failed Obamacare website.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.
Townes-Whitley and her Princeton roommate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.
Toni Townes,’85, is a onetime policy analyst with the General Accounting Office and previously served in the Peace Corps in Gabon , West Africa . Her decision to return to work, as an African-American woman, after six years of raising kids was applauded by a Princeton alumni publication in 1998.
George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal’s parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.
On the government end, construction of the disastrous website was overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of longtime failed website-builder Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services.
CGI Federal did not immediately return a request for comment.

Lets see if we can connect the dots here ...
1.) No American companies considered;
2.) A Canadian company hired;
3.) No Bid contract for $93 million;
4.) Top executive at website-building firm went to school with Michelle Obama and was her roommate;
5.) Previous experience building gun registry for Canadian government;
6.) Fired by Canadian Government for overruns that cost Canada $100 million;
4.) Overruns for Obamacare enrollment website now costing U.S. $678 million,and still going up.
Does this bother anybody else besides me? And this is just one of their corrupt enterprises. The Obamas are worse than "Bernie" Madoff and far more dangerous to the country. These thieves and traitors should be in jail for the rest of their lives.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Barbara Walters and the messiah (small 'm' intentional)

Years ago I had a lot of respect for Barbara Walters but that soon turned sour when during a television interview with then first lady Hillary Clinton (during Bill Clinton's 1st term), she caught (or rather I caught it and Walters overlooked it) Hillary in a boldface lie and let it ride.  The interview continued and with every question posed by Walters I kept hoping she would come back to inform the viewers of the truth.  That never happened!  Before the interview was over it wasn't difficult to comprehend that Walters had taken sides with the far-left anti-American zealot.  I didn't exactly avoid Walters over the continuing years, I wanted to assure myself that any ill feelings toward her were legitimate.  She certainly didn't alter my opinion in any of her broadcasts, in fact I wondered why the entire country gave this woman two minutes of their time; everything about her was fake as fake could be.  Then I realized that most viewers rarely pay any attention to the words used by celebrity interviewers such as Barbara Walters. The viewers are like spectators at a Hollywood event.  Ask them two seconds afterwards what was said and you generally get answers like, "Wasn't she just beautiful." 
So now we have the famous interviewer switching seats and becoming the interviewee.  Piers Morgan asks the questions (regarding Obama)...Barbara gives her heartfelt answers.  "We thought he was going to be the next Messiah."  She said, "We... We thought he was going to be the next Messiah." and that means one hell of a lot of believers (aka voters).
It is written in Exodus 20, 2-17 "You shall have no other gods before me." and amplified in the first of the Ten Commandments, "I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me."
But Walters doesn't believe none of it, rather she believes in the strange god now living in the White House. 
Did you ever wonder why the country is going to hell?  Its because people like Barbara Walters promotes the idea. I have no legitmate reason to ever pay this woman any attention in future broadcasts when she expresses her belief in demigods as she does here: (see video ↓) ~  Norman E. Hooben

Sunday, December 15, 2013

What is 'Common Core' ?

I've been attending new math tutoring classes at the library so I can better help the kids I watch with their homework. I plan to share a video on Facebook every time I learn something that I feel will be beneficial to share with parents.
Posted by Melissa Strzala on Monday, February 1, 2016
Recommended Reading...
And lets not forget rule #10 from The Project (link)
10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassyin Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America’s high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.
This ↓ is what happens to people who are educated under "COMMON CORE"

Just in case you haven't seen a true-life example of Common Core...
This ↓ is it !!!
The student was downgraded for failing to estimate...
If you think this is alright for your child, you're part of the problem!

Public Sector Banking ...can we at least look at the possibilities?

The following article was published in the Asia Times OnLine in March 0f 2012 and I've been hanging on to it since.  Ellen Brown, the author, writes extensively about banking and monetary issues and is, in my estimation, the most knowledgeable in that area of expertise whereas my limited knowledge doesn't extend much beyond managerial accounting and ECO 102.  I did however enter a comment on the Asia Times page, so I thought I might as well reproduce it here and let the rest of you readers form your own opinion:
I'm still optimistic about the idea of a government owned bank... either federal or state owned. But I would entertain the idea that the current banking system pay interest to the United States Treasury as well as for the cost of producing the currency. The concept comes close to making the Treasury Dept. a government owned bank...think about it.
Occasionally  Ellen sends me her most recent articles and on occasion I'll re-post them here.  Just a few days ago I posted Which Is Riskier, a Public Bank or a Wall Street Bank? which received some attention but we don't get much least not at this end.  I believe the subject matter needs to be studied by our illustrious leaders but that would be asking too much...they might even have to task their brains for once.  ~  by Norman E. Hooben

Black sheep of finance
By Ellen Brown
Once the black sheep of high finance, government owned banks can reassure depositors about the safety of their savings and can help maintain a focus on productive investment in a world in which effective financial regulation remains more of an aspiration than a reality. - Centre for Economic Policy Research, (January 2010). [1]
Public sector banking is a concept that is relatively unknown in the United States. Only one state - North Dakota - owns its own bank. North Dakota is also the only state to escape the credit crisis of 2008, sporting a budget surplus every year since; but skeptics write this off to coincidence or other factors.

The common perception is that government bureaucrats are bad businessmen. To determine whether government-owned banks are assets or liabilities, then, we need to look farther afield.
When we remove our myopic US blinders, it turns out that globally, not only are publicly owned banks quite common but that countries with strong public banking sectors generally have strong, stable economies.

According to an Inter-American Development Bank paper presented in 2005, the percentage of state ownership in the banking industry globally by the mid-nineties was over 40%. [2] The BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India, and China - contain nearly three billion of the world’s seven billion people, or 40% of the global population. The BRICs all make heavy use of public sector banks, which compose about 75% of the banks in India, 69% or more in China, 45% in Brazil, and 60% in Russia.

The BRICs have been the main locus of world economic growth in the last decade. China Daily reports, "Between 2000 and 2010, BRIC's GDP grew by an incredible 92.7%, compared to a global GDP growth of just 32%, with industrialized economies having a very modest 15.5%."

All the leading banks in the BRIC half of the globe are state-owned. [3] In fact the largest banks globally are state-owned, including:
  • The two largest banks by market capitalization (ICBC and China Construction Bank);
  • The largest bank by deposits (Japan Post Bank);
  • The largest bank by assets (Royal Bank of Scotland, now nationalized);
  • The world's largest development bank (BNDES in Brazil). [4]

    A May 2010 article in The Economist noted that the strong and stable publicly owned banks of India, China and Brazil helped those countries weather the banking crisis afflicting most of the rest of the world in the last few years. [5] According to Professor Kurt von Mettenheim of the Sao Paulo Business School of Brazil:
    Government banks provided counter cyclical credit and policy options to counter the effects of the recent financial crisis, while realizing competitive advantage over private and foreign banks. Greater client confidence and official deposits reinforced liability base and lending capacity. The credit policies of BRIC government banks help explain why these countries experienced shorter and milder economic downturns during 2007-2008. [6]
    Surprising findings
    In a 2010 research paper summarized on, economists Svetlana Andrianova, et al, wrote that the post-2008 nationalization of a number of very large banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland, "offers an opportune moment to reduce the political power of bankers and to carry out much needed financial reforms." [7] But "there are concerns that governments may be unable to run nationalized banks efficiently."

    Not to worry, say the authors:
    Follow-on research we have carried out (Andrianova et al, 2009) ... shows that government ownership of banks has, if anything, been robustly associated with higher long run growth rates.

    Using data from a large number of countries for 1995-2007, we find that, other things equal, countries with high degrees of government ownership of banking have grown faster than countries with little government ownership of banks. We show that this finding is robust to a battery of econometric tests.
    Expanding on this theme in their research paper, the authors write:
    While many countries in continental Europe, including Germany and France, have had a fair amount of experience with government-owned banks, the UK and the USA have found themselves in unfamiliar territory.

    It is therefore perhaps not surprising that there is deeply ingrained hostility in these countries towards the notion that governments can run banks effectively. ... Hostility towards government-owned banks reflects the hypothesis ... that these banks are established by politicians who use them to shore up their power by instructing them to lend to political supporters and government-owned enterprises. In return, politicians receive votes and other favours.

    This hypothesis also postulates that politically motivated banks make bad lending decisions, resulting in non-performing loans, financial fragility and slower growth.
    But that is not what the data of these researchers showed:
    [W]e have found that ... countries with government-owned banks have, on average, grown faster than countries with no or little government ownership of banks. ... This is, of course, a surprising result, especially in light of the widespread belief - typically supported by anecdotal evidence - that " ... bureaucrats are generally bad bankers" ...
    What accounts for their surprising findings? The authors provide a novel explanation:
    We suggest that politicians may actually prefer banks not to be in the public sector. ... Conditions of weak corporate governance in banks provide fertile ground for quick enrichment for both bankers and politicians - at the expense ultimately of the taxpayer. In such circumstances politicians can offer bankers a system of weak regulation in exchange for party political contributions, positions on the boards of banks or lucrative consultancies.

    Activities that are more likely to provide both sides with quick returns are the more speculative ones, especially if they are sufficiently opaque as not to be well understood by the shareholders such as complex derivatives trading.

    Government-owned banks, on the other hand, have less freedom to engage in speculative strategies that result in quick enrichment for bank insiders and politicians. Moreover, politicians tend to be held accountable for wrongdoings or bad management in the public sector but are typically only indirectly blamed, if at all, for the misdemeanors of private banks. It is the shareholders who are expected to prevent these but lack of transparency and weak governance stops them from doing so in practice.

    On the other hand, when it comes to banks that are in the public sector, democratic accountability of politicians is more likely to discourage them from engaging in speculation. In such banks, top managers are more likely to be compelled to focus on the more mundane job of financing real businesses and economic growth.
    The BRICs as a global power
    Focusing on the financing of real businesses and economic growth seems to be the secret of the BRICs, which are leading the world in economic development today. But the BRIC phenomenon is more than just a growth trend identified by an economist. It is now an international organization, an alliance of countries representing the common interests and goals of its members.

    The first BRIC meeting, held in 2008, was called a triumph for Russian leader Vladimir Putin's policy of promoting multilateral arrangements that would challenge the United States' concept of a unipolar world. [8] The BRIC countries had their first official summit and became a formal organization in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in 2009. They met in Brazil in 2010 and in China in 2011, and they will meet in India in 2012. In 2010, at China's invitation, South Africa joined the group, making it "BRICS" and adding a strategic presence on the African continent.

    The BRICS seek more voice in the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. They are even discussing their own multicultural bank to fund projects within their own nations, in direct competition with the IMF. They oppose the dollar as global reserve currency.

    After the Yekaterinburg summit, they called for a new global reserve currency, one that was diversified, stable and predictable; and they have the clout to get it. [9] According to Liam Halligan, writing in The UK's Telegraph:
    The BRICs account for ... around three-quarters of total currency reserves. They have few serious fiscal issues and all are net external creditors. [10]
    Western financial interests have long fought to maintain the dollar as global reserve currency, but they are losing that battle, despite economic and military coercion. Russia, China and India are now nuclear powers.

    The BRICS will have to be negotiated with, and the first step to forming a working relationship is to understand how their economies work.

    (Written for the Public Banking in America Conference April 27-28th, Philadelphia.)

    1. See here.
    2. See here.
    3. See here.
    4. See here for bank rankings.
    5. See here.
    6. See here.
    7. See here.
    8. See here.
    9. See here.
    10. See here.
  • See

    Next time you call for roadside assistance, make sure they know how to assist