Obama Commits Serial Fraud... Will he spend decades in the slammer?

If you like your health-care plan,
you will be able to keep your health-care plan.
Period.

National Review OnLine
Obama’s Massive Fraud
If he were a CEO in the private sector, he’d be prosecuted for such deception.

Andrew C. McCarthy

By Andrew C. McCarthy

If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.
How serious was this lie, repeated by Barack Obama with such beguiling regularity? Well, how would the Justice Department be dealing with it if it had been uttered by, say, the president of an insurance company rather than the president of the United States?
Fraud is a serious federal felony, usually punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment — with every repetition of a fraudulent communication chargeable as a separate crime. In computing sentences, federal sentencing guidelines factor in such considerations as the dollar value of the fraud, the number of victims, and the degree to which the offender’s treachery breaches any special fiduciary duties he owes. Cases of multi-million-dollar corporate frauds — to say nothing of multi-billion-dollar, Bernie Madoff–level scams that nevertheless pale beside Obamacare’s 
dimensions — often result in terms amounting to decades in the slammer.
Justice Department guidelines, set forth in the U.S. Attorneys Manual, recommend prosecution for fraud in situations involving “any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.” So, for example, if a schemer were intentionally to deceive all Americans, or a class of Americans (e.g., people who had health insurance purchased on the individual market), by repeating numerous times — over the airwaves, in mailings, and in electronic announcements — an assertion the schemer knew to be false and misleading, that would constitute an actionable fraud — particularly if the statements induced the victims to take action to their detriment, or lulled the victims into a false sense of security.
For a fraud prosecution to be valid, the fraudulent scheme need not have been successful. Nor is there any requirement that the schemer enrich himself personally. The prosecution must simply prove that some harm to the victim was contemplated by the schemer. If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended.
To be more illustrative, let’s say our schemer is the president of a health-insurance company, and that it was clearly foreseeable to him that his company’s clients would lose their current insurance plans if the company adopted his proposal of a complex new health-insurance framework. In fact, let’s assume that the schemer not only had analyses showing that clients would lose their plans but that he also had a history of openly favoring a “single-payer” insurance system — i.e., an unconcealed desire to move everyone from private to government-managed insurance arrangements.
Now, suppose the schemer nevertheless vowed to the company’s clients, to whom he bore fiduciary obligations, that they needn’t fear his proposed new insurance framework; under it, he promised time after time after time, if they liked their current plans, they would be able to keep those plans. And let’s say that, on the basis of that repeated vow, the clients supported the schemer’s reappointment as president and his proposed new framework. On these facts, the clients’ subsequent loss of their current insurance plans helps prove the schemer’s fraudulent intent. The schemer has committed not just a fraud but a carefully thought-out, fully successful fraud, replete with suffering victims.
The concept of fraudulent deception, like the concept of perjury and other forms of actionable false statement, often entails not only affirmative lies — e.g., the general manager who tells a baseball player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” and then proceeds to trade the player after he signs; the concept also commonly involves the omission of material facts (what’s called “material omission”) — e.g., the general manager who tells the player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” under circumstances where, unbeknownst to the player, the general manager has already made arrangements to trade him.
A material omission is the intentional failure to state any fact the communication of which would be necessary to ensure that statements already made are not misleading. The concept of material omission is a staple of fraud prosecutions. A good example is the Obama Justice Department’s ongoing and transparently political effort to portray financial institutions — as opposed to government policies — as the proximate cause of the mortgage-industry collapse that resulted in our national economic meltdown.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s minions have recently sued Bank of America and UBS. The complaints filed in court by prosecutors allege that these financial institutions defrauded investors in the sale of mortgage-backed securities by failing to disclose important facts about the underlying mortgages. Indeed, prosecutors asserted that financial institutions’ statements about these securities were both lies and, even where arguably true, material omissions. That’s because the statements withheld from investors the fact that the institutions well knew, based on internal analyses, that many of the mortgages backing the securities would go into default.
Recall that President Obama knew three years ago, based on internal analyses, that because of his administration’s own regulation-writing, millions of Americans would lose the health plans he nonetheless continued to promise they could keep. The president hid the data . . . just as did those financial institutions that his trusty attorney general has sued. Comparatively speaking, though, the financial institutions defrauded significantly fewer victims. Thus it is noteworthy that Holder is now demanding that the institutions pay hundreds of millions of dollars for their fraudulent misrepresentations.
Even that is not good enough for some prominent Democrats. Senator Carl Levin, for example, blasted the Justice Department for not pursuing a criminal fraud case against Goldman Sachs. Goldman had not made false statements in marketing the securities in dispute; but it did fail to disclose that it had shorted the same securities — i.e., it was quietly betting against the same securities it was selling. (I wrote sympathetically toward Goldman here, and Nicole Gelinas posted a characteristically smart rebuttal here.) Senator Levin railed at Holder’s decision not to file criminal charges, portraying it as an abdication in the face of behavior that was “deceptive and immoral.” Of course, if you want to talk about “deceptive and immoral,” Obama was snowing ordinary Americans, not savvy investors; and he was not just betting against the insurance plans he was promising to preserve; he was personally working to wipe them out.
The Justice Department is notoriously aggressive when it comes to material omissions by public corporations. Any public statement — not just in a required SEC filing but in any public context — may be deemed actionable if its purpose is to deceive the general public about a company’s condition. For example, as I’ve noted before, the Justice Department indicted Martha Stewart for fraud over press statements that did not disclose damaging information about her company.

Flying On Empty...

...an empty cockpit!

 

F-16 Flies With An Empty Cockpit source

By Robert Sterling 

 

As a pilotless F-16 roared into the sky Sept. 19 at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., members of Boeing’s QF-16 team and the U.S. Air Force celebrated.
The flight represented the first unmanned QF-16 Full Scale Aerial Target flight. Put another way, fighter pilots now have an adversary for which to train against that prepares them like never before.
Two U.S. Air Force test pilots in a ground control station at Tydall remotely flew the QF-16, which is a retired F-16 jet modified to be an aerial target. While in the air, the QF-16 mission included a series of simulated maneuvers, reaching supersonic speeds, returning to base and landing, all without a pilot in the cockpit.
“It was a little different to see it without anyone in it, but it was a great flight all the way around,” said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Ryan Inman, Commander, 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron. “It’s a replication of current, real world situations and aircraft platforms they can shoot as a target. Now we have a 9G capable, highly sustainable aerial target.”
Prior to the QF-16, the military used a QF-4 aircraft, which was a modification of the F-4 Phantom, a Vietnam-era fighter The modified QF-16 provides pilots a target that performs closer to many jets flying today.
The QF-16s were all retired aircraft. Boeing retrieved them from Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona and restored them for flight.
Next up, live fire testing moves to Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. The military will ultimately use QF-16s for weapons testing and other aerial training.
So far, Boeing has modified six F-16s into the QF-16 configuration.
To see the QF-16 make its first flight, watch the video. To see highlights from the cockpit video, click the link (pilotless F-16) in the written story.

Obama and the Race Card

 

Source



Click on image to enlarge.
by Storm'n Norm'n

The Issue Of Race

John McClain @ The All New Gulf1
We have the most racist, activist culture today than has existed since I was a child and part of the civil rights movement. Every day, mobs of Blacks will gather in most cities and towns and commit mass violence, with the latest story, a matter of mobs of Blacks entering Clothing Stores in Chicago, assembling clothing racks in trains, and running out with half a dozen racks of clothing and more.

For six years, ever since the violence of the New Black Panther Party was confronted by our court system, found to be violating voter’s rights, tried, found guilty, and while awaiting sentencing, were given a free pass because obama was elected. The newly elected president simply let them go.

What obama did told the story of his beliefs from his first day. As president, he could have pardoned the men, but to do so, he would have to provide rationale, good reason for why they were improperly found guilty, and why justice is served only by letting them free. The facts simply showed these men were nothing more than the KKK in Black, and there were no “facts” by which pardon could be appropriate.
Obama could have commuted their sentences, but that rests upon conviction and extenuating circumstances, and while free, they would still be “guilty”. He simply allowed them to walk because short of flat out lying and stating they were criminally convicted, any act he took ratified the fact the evidence proved them to be criminals.
In allowing those men to walk’ the man who would be president told them, those of similar persuasion, and all the rest of us, while he holds office the law won’t be upheld. If you’re Black, you get away free. Making this statement as the first act of his presidency, he laid out the fact his whole tenure would be racially driven, criminal, from beginning to its end.
Simultaeously, obama set up both the White community to be punished on the presumption of racism and guilt, while Blacks are encouraged to push the boundaries of crime, formerly constrained by the expectation of prosecution. Police forces which have been cautiously dealing with the calculated, social media planned Black on White crime, have done everything in their power to enlist the aid of the media. The media is notably missing in all this, they appear at ease with what takes place.
We hear about every slightest bit which could suggest racist intents each and every day, but while these are broadcast, at the exact same time, there is organized Black violence, organized Black Mobs which gather via social media, plan and prepare an attack, and then routinely carry it out, and this happens in every city, every day, with dozens of incidents of Black Mob Violence visited on White individuals at the same time.
Whether it is pre-teen to teen White girls pulled into cars or vans, raped, beaten, sometimes to death, or elderly White ladies, or men walking home, having a gang gather around and pummel them for being White, and not fighting back, this is deliberately ignored, because there is one and only one reason it is taking place: the first Black President told America, Black violence would be tolerated and in fact, it would be defended and supported by the White House, even to the point of the would be president having the gall to suggest a criminal thug “would look like him”, as if that clearly meant he was the innocent victim.
We either call this as it is, demand this be fully and clearly put before the public, and every effort made to put it to an end, and the crimes exposed, acknowledged by the Community which has excused it, even suggested it was right, even though it is the Black Minority attacking the White Majority, or name calling won’t matter.
There was a time when a minority of Whites thought they would regain de facto segregation by violence, however the majority of Whites called them out, put them in chains, and jail. Most Blacks want to live in peace yet it must be they, The Black Community, which stops this, they must demonstrate they don’t support this ideology or we have no choice but to accept what we see.

_________________________________

A Must Read... Obama Preparing For America's Surrender (updated Nov 16, 2013)

The Obama Family... Did you say, "Family"?

First you have the "single mother" slip... Frankly I believe she is (or was) for there's no history of her
and Obama having children and raising a family(*See update below).  We do know from earlier reports that her marraige to the man with no past (except for some minor distractions like being a member of the Communist Party) was set up and or recommended to further his political agenda...or more accuratley, the agenda of his handlers.
*Update: Where are Obama’s daughters’ baby pics and birth records?

Then you have Barry's Larry two-night stand having a gay time in Chicago.

And now we have Barry Soetoro, the gay pride foreign kid who hangs out with the men in Hawaii and smoking crack-cocaine.

"...the war to overthrow America's liberty approaches its final political battle."

Note: See video at bottom  of page and find out what 95% of the voters do not know.
 

Obamacare: incompetence, or treacherous genius?
Obamacare website distraction as part of totalitarian strategy
By Alan Keyes @ RenewAmerica.com

It must be true that sometimes things are just what they seem. But the elitist faction's general offensive against America's liberty has a thoroughgoing character that should warn liberty's defenders against accepting this assumption without thoroughly thinking things through.

The brouhaha over the Obamacare website offers opponents of Obamacare a gratifying opportunity to vent their spleens in the aftermath of the recently staged funding theatrics in Congress. The funding battle was the first critical chance for Congress to stall the consolidation of permanent government control over America's healthcare system. Is it only a coincidence that the website debacle redirects some of the anger of the GOP's rightly disillusioned constituents away from the treacherous quislings in the GOP leadership (Boehner, McConnell, McCain et al.)?

The GOP leadership's collaboration with Obama offers ever more conclusive proof that, under their direction, the GOP has become the political equivalent of a heat sink. It exists to collect, then redirect or uselessly dissipate, the passions, political energy, and material resources of Americans who want to restore and preserve constitutional self-government. This keeps the heat of their intense opposition from disrupting the sham partisan process whereby the elitist faction aims to substitute their totalitarian control for what is supposed to be constitutional self-government of, by, and for the American people.

I certainly understand the temptation to wallow in the vengeful, if short-lived, pleasures occasioned by the spectacle of Obama's apparent incompetence. But doing so carelessly could be a fatal mistake. The defenders of liberty could end up like the general who hastily commits his forces to all-out pursuit after what appears to be a break in the enemy's line of defense. Too late, he finds that the enemy has drawn his forces into a thoughtfully prepared position that dooms them to annihilation.

Here's the question: Is the competent implementation of socialist totalitarianism better or worse for liberty? Let's assume that, in response to severe criticism of the incompetent launch of Obamacare, the Obama faction takes effective steps to remedy its perceived defects. When the smoke clears, they will announce that Obamacare has been fixed. They will vigorously denounce people who continue to resist it as extreme obstructionists, malcontents with no motive but their implacable (racist?) hatred of Obama.

By thus effectively stigmatizing continued opposition to Obamacare, the elitist faction strategists will give the GOP collaborators a rhetorical cudgel. With it they will proceed to discredit GOP politicians who dare to speak for their constituents' opposition to the elitist faction's socialist scheme. The large, anti-socialist plurality of voters left in the GOP will thus be deprived of representation as the war to overthrow America's liberty approaches its final political battle. For them it will be a contest of sighs and whispers, as they regret the folly that leaves them with no choice for liberty.

Thus the Obama faction's supposed tactical incompetence will be revealed as a supremely competent strategic maneuver, a feigned setback that, by decisively strengthening the hand of the elitist faction's GOP collaborators, prepares the ground for their faction's final victory.

Could this maneuver be thwarted? Only by opposition leaders with the will and ability to make it clear that incompetent execution is not the reason many Americans oppose Obamacare. They oppose it because the competent execution of such totalitarian schemes will only more effectively extinguish the life of Americans as a free people, competently executing the nation in another, more tragical sense.

In this respect, of course, Obamacare is just one aspect of the war on liberty. In every respect, the defense against that assault would be more effectively conducted by people who consistently set the different elements of the assault in the context of the war as a whole, so as to remind those who battle on this or that particular front of the common cause they share with all the other defenders. In the political context, what's needed is a rubric that puts the battle on each and every front in the context of a clear objective that, if attained, will secure overall victory.

No objective better serves this strategic aim than the one that, if obtained, would at one stroke relax the political sinews of the whole elitist faction offensive. By removing the national government's power from the hands of the partisans of totalitarian socialism, their opponents will unplug the generator that provides energy to every aspect of their offensive.

But the continual treacheries of the GOP's elitist faction leadership have made it painfully clear that it does no good to remove one wing of this anti-American elitist faction only to replace it with another. The political objective of removing the elitist totalitarians from power needs to be informed by another, more fundamental objective, which provides a rubric for choice that inoculates against the recurrence of the threat.

What might this rubric be? One hint comes from the behavior of the GOP wing of the elitist faction. Right now, for example, in the 13th U.S. Congressional District in Illinois, the GOP quislings are going out of their way to suppress the candidacy of Erika Harold in the GOP primary. An attorney, the Harvard Law school graduate is a former Miss America (2004). She also happens to be a black American. It's hard to explain their irrationally prejudicial efforts to exclude and suppress her candidacy. In light of that, some of her supporters make the mistake of trying to play the race card to account for the GOP leadership's efforts to sabotage it. I say, to the contrary, that the more plausible explanation is the notoriety she achieved as a public figure willing unashamedly to stand by her Christian convictions.

I think the GOP's elitist faction leaders are seeking to intimidate her into leaving her Christian identity behind as a condition for participation in GOP politics. Believe me, in this regard I know whereof I speak. I can't say whether Erika Harold will stand firm against this intimidation or not. However, it confirms what I learned from my own experience in the GOP. The GOP's elitist faction leadership has a special animus against people who faithfully adhere to the God-acknowledging founding principles of the United States. They realize that no one steadfastly adhering to those principles will sell out their faithful constituents, because that would mean breaking faith with the authority of the Creator.

As patriot Davids take a stand against the God-rejecting Goliaths of the elitist faction, what better stones to sling than those marked by a proven unwillingness to abandon the liberty wherewith God has made us free?

________________________ 

Are you a fiddler?

If you are an Obama supporter, yes you are!  You may also be blind, deaf, and dumb.   For if you do not know by now what it is Obama is up to you're too far gone.  And when that time comes that Obama surrenders this country to the evils of Communism and the inequities of Socialism, you will never, never, never be free.  There's not that much difference between the two; Communism is led by the political elite and the peons (that's the folks) beckon their every call...Socialism, on the other hand is for the people and not the Socialist elite who will take from your labor and give it to the lazy too lazy to labor.

A wise man once said:

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels.

Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. (circa 1891)

When the powers to be see that its in their power to control the masses they make very good use of that power. One powerful way to restrict those under their control is to limit the successful climb to a better life by making the peons think they are increasing their lot in life by dictating the wages the peons recieve...and also, preventing those that provide the wages from advancing and or expanding their business as they would like to. Generally, or I should say, one-hundred percent of the dictataors (aka politicians) that propose (dictate) wage increases are ideologically, Socialists...now go back and re-read what the wise man said. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Ps: If more Americans understood the following video they would toss out all career politicians...so why don't you pass it on to the un-informed voters...which is about 95% of all Americans. ...the interview was conducted in 1980 but its significance is very...shall I say, still in play.