Thread: The Future of Obamacare

Unbridled Truth Cannot Be Silenced


What amazes me most is that there are *still* people out there that think the problems with and/or caused by 0bamadontcare are NOT deliberate. ~ Hunter

Another Lie from Obama? That Falsifies the Entire Rationale of Obamacare? Really?

Posted By Bob Allen on Jan 3, 2014


From the Daily Caller:

A Harvard University study published Thursday concludes that Medicaid enrollment significantly boosts emergency room visits.

This is in direct contradiction to the Obama administration’s claims that his healthcare reform law would put a dent in costly visits to the ER as a way to cut spending.

Harvard researchers had a unique opportunity in Oregon’s 2008 Medicaid expansion. The state had limited funding to expand the program and established a lottery to decide who would get coverage. The study followed the healthcare consumption of those that won Medicaid coverage and those in the lottery that didn’t.

As it turns out, there was a 40 percent increase in ER visits by those who made it into Medicaid. Medicaid patients went to the emergency department 1.43 times in 18 months on average, while lottery hopefuls that didn’t make it into the program only made an average of 1.02 visits.

And what’s more, the increased visits are for the same primary care services that President Barack Obama singled out as a factor Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would cut down on. Researchers found no decline in ER visits for smaller ailments such as colds and flus, which would be better treated by primary care physicians instead.
The study pushes back against much of the Obama administration’s justifications for the Medicaid expansion.

In November, President Obama spoke about the healthcare law in New Orleans, chastising Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal for declining Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

When it comes to poor residents’ coverage, Obama claimed that “we just pay for the most expensive version, which is when they go to the emergency room because what happens is the hospitals have to take sick folk.” But in Oregon’s experience, taxpayers are actually on the hook for even more emergency room services.

This is absolutely shocking news—on two counts:
1) You mean to tell me that people who don’t pay anything for medical care aren’t concerned with how much it costs everyone else to pay for that “free” care? Who could have guessed that!?!
2) The White House lied to the American people to get its way, and promote another program that will hasten our economic ruin?!?

These things are beyond belief… unless you subscribe to the historic Western sociology of man, which says he’s a sinner… but… hey… we all know that’s so old fashioned! Today we know it’s “good” to steal from your neighbors, and lie to them.

Just ask Barack Obama.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/01/...bcGmXbMt4Y8.99

Obama-chaos Has Begun: (Un?)Insured Leave Hospital Without Treatment

Posted By Mark Horne on Jan 3, 2014

The UK’s Daily Mail is reporting on the (completely predictable and predicted) carnage:

Hospital staff in Northern Virginia are turning away sick people on a frigid Thursday morning because they can’t determine whether their Obamacare insurance plans are in effect.

Patients in a close-in DC suburb who think they’ve signed up for new insurance plans are struggling to show their December enrollments are in force, and health care administrators aren’t taking their word for it.

In place of quick service and painless billing, these Virginians are now facing the threat of sticker-shock that comes with bills they can’t afford.

‘They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!’ a coughing Maria Galvez told MailOnline outside the Inova Healthplex facility in the town of Springfield.

She was leaving the building without getting a needed chest x-ray.


‘The people in there told me that since I didn’t have an insurance card, I would be billed for the whole cost of the x-ray,’ Galvez said, her young daughter in tow. ‘It’s not fair – you know, I signed up last week like I was supposed to.’

The x-ray’s cost, she was told, would likely be more than $500.

What you notice here is that the hospitals aren’t taking any chances. This indicates that they are terrified that the Affordable Care Act “system” will leave them holding the bag if they treat someone who hasn’t been enrolled yet. I think that is odd because, obviously, a hospital can’t stay in business without patients. In this case, they are simply paralyzed with fear of what will happen and are waiting for the insurance issue to get fixed so they aren’t bearing all the risk. They want upfront assurance that these patients can pay.

It is probably not going to happen, but I could see a good outcome from all of this. What if no one is definitely insured for some time to come? The hospital is eventually going to realize it is starved for revenue. It will have to trim as much as it can from its budget and also offer the best deals they can to attract patients. That would mean prices would plummet as hospitals competed for customers. We would see the bust of the health care bubble and the start of more affordable health care.

Government incompetence and overreach would give us back the free market.

But as much as I believe in government incompetence, I’m afraid that there are enough dedicated people in government who realize their credibility and survival as the parasite class is at stake. They won’t let it happen.

The Daily Mail story contains a lot more data and stories. For instance:

A similar situation frustrated Mary, an African-American woman small businesswoman who asked MailOnline not to publish her last name. She was leaving the Inova Alexandria Hospital in Alexandria, Virginia with two family members.

‘I had chest pains last night, and they took me in the emergency room,’ Mary said. ‘They told me they were going to admit me, but when I told them I hadn’t heard from my insurance company since I signed up, they changed their tune.’

She told MailOnline that a nurse advised her that her bill would go up by at least $3,000 if she were admitted for a day, and her doctor told her the decision was up to her.

‘Should I be in the hospital? Probably,’ she said. ‘Maybe it’s one of those borderline cases. I have to think that if I were really in danger, they wouldn’t give me the choice. But what if I think I’m covered and I’m really not?’

‘The emergency room bill is going to be bad enough.’

I have to wonder, If Mary dies will her relatives have standing to sue HHS? Or will they have immunity, claiming this is the authorized consequence of their “death panel” authority?

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/01/...2Lz0BcZ0PAU.99

Nation In Distress


This about says it all..

Join Nation in Distress...~vl

Warning to Obama: Legal Battle Against Obamacare is Just Beginning

Posted on January 7, 2014 by Lily Dane

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson

Eleven state attorneys general signed a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to warn that they will fight Obama’s illegal changes to the ACA.

The letter was signed by the attorneys general of Texas, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Virginia.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told Newsmax that the fight is being escalated against Obamacare, and that Obama is disregarding the constitution:

“You’re going to see more people really for this cause because Americans . . . are incredibly frustrated by how the president keeps changing and altering the goal post and the Obamacare law.
[Obama] is a president who is unconstrained by the law and is acting more like a king than he is president, because it is only the Congress of the United States of America that can make laws.
So, here it’s the president who’s making up the laws as he goes along . . . The rule of law in the United States of America is becoming as wishy-washy as it is in some of these Third World countries.
I don’t know of any other president in the history of the United States of America who has disregarded the constitutional structure more than this president. And, as a result, that is why these state attorneys general, including myself, are now pushing back.”
What we have seen time and time again is the president incapable of living within the confines of the heavy-handed law imposed on its fellow Americans and efforts to try to extricate itself from a political bad situation.”

In an unrelated case, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson filed a lawsuit today that regarding the way Obamacare is being applied to Congress. The lawsuit challenges a U.S. agency decision that allows the federal government to keep paying part of the costs of health insurance for U.S. lawmakers and their staffs who must buy coverage through the Obamacare marketplaces.
Reuters reports:

Johnson said the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority when the Office of Personnel Management ruled last year that the government could continue to make employer contributions to the health insurance plans of 535 U.S. lawmakers and their staff – even when they purchase coverage through the new Obamacare online exchanges.
He said this violated the intent of Congress, which was that Congress would participate in the healthcare exchanges on the same terms as other Americans.

Johnson says decision singled Congress and their staff out for “special treatment” that other Americans don’t get:

“I think it’s just a basic issue of fairness. I really do believe the American people expect, and they have every right to expect, that members of Congress, the political class here in Washington, should be fully subject to all the rules, all the laws that Congress imposes on the rest of America.”

Johnson said he refused the employer contribution for himself and purchased private healthcare coverage through a broker in Wisconsin. He did not know how many lawmakers had done the same.

---

Contributed by Lily Dane of The Daily Sheeple.
Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”
Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

http://dcclothesline.com/2014/01/07/...ust-beginning/

How Harry Reid and Senate Democrats
misrepresented the Affordable Care Act


Destroying your health-insurance plan wasn’t a ‘bug’
in Obamacare — it was an intentional, core feature

By Steven Miller | Thursday, January 9, 2014 | 0 Comments

Eight times during the summer of 2009, Sen. Reid assured Nevadans and America that "if you like" your current health plan, "you can keep it." Click picture to see text and video on all dates.
Barack Obama wasn’t the only high-profile public figure who repeatedly misled Americans about the “health reform” legislation that Democrats were trying to push through Congress in 2009.Nevada’s Harry Reid, atop the U.S. Senate as majority leader, was also regularly telling the country, “If you like the health care you have, you can keep it.”
That’s what a survey of the Congressional Record — the official journal of the U.S. Congress — shows.
During the summer of 2009, Sen. Reid made that pledge from the Senate floor eight times. Usually he repeated it rote, word for word.
All of Reid’s lieutenants in the Senate leadership — Dick Durbin (Ill.), Chuck Schumer (NY) and Patty Murray (Wash.) — did the same, carefully enunciating that same assurance, exactly verbatim. A plurality of other Senate Democrats also made sure to inject the same promise, word for word, in their public remarks.
Why were Sen. Reid and Senate Democrats always so careful to recite the “you can keep it” phrase with virtually no changes, almost like a verbal tic? Because they had a big problem and Democratic Party “message-framing experts” were saying those specific words had been scientifically tested in polls and focus groups to solve their problem.
Simply stated, the Democrats’ problem was that big majorities of Americans, polls showed, didn’t want what the party was selling. People were fearful that what the GOP was characterizing as “a government takeover of health care” would, indeed, end up taking away the private insurance coverage they already had — and with which they were well satisfied.
Actually, what the Democrat messaging experts — longtime top party pollster and strategist Celinda Lake and the leftist Herndon Group — had found was unsurprising: When people were assured that their health plans, doctors and hospitals wouldn’t be taken away from them, their opposition to the legislation diminished.
Thus, making that simple, clear promise — even if not true — offered Senate Democrats a way to gain a short-term edge in the warfare over their legislation.
And they took it.
Today, four years later, the assurances that President Obama, Reid and Senate Democrats made to the American people have been designated by PolitiFact.com as the Lie of the Year, while the President, for his repeated misrepresentations, was given four Pinocchios by the Washington Post’s Fact Checker and included atop its “biggest Pinocchios of 2013” page.
Is it possible that Sen. Reid and his top Senate lieutenants never understood that the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” they were designing would, if passed, kick most Americans out of their pre-Obama health-care plans?
It seems exceedingly unlikely. As Politico’s John Harris and David Nather wrote last November, the “larger longer-term threat” to Obamacare is that it is “working precisely the way it is supposed to work.”
The “stumbling start” of the HealthCare.gov website, they opine, “is that it shined a harsh light on intended consequences — more costs and more government regulation — that were always embedded in the ACA but were deliberately downplayed by Obama and Democrats.”
Now, they say, “some very clear tradeoffs that were always central to Obamacare have been put on sharp display:

It is, in many respects, a classic social welfare program. Like other social programs, it involves transferring from haves to have-nots. Healthy people are going to have to pay to help sick people get coverage. People who had skimpy coverage before — and in some cases, not-so-skimpy coverage — will have to upgrade to insurance that covers more things, but costs more. And young people will have to pay so older people don’t face sky-high premiums…
For some people, the policy changes were always going to be highly disruptive. … [T]he law eventually has to move people with individual coverage into new plans with stronger rules and benefits. Whether it happens now or later, it has to happen — otherwise the new market falls apart.
There is no subtle way to control costs. To keep the prices of the new plans from rising even higher, a lot of them have narrower networks of doctors and hospitals than the health plans most Americans are used to. And the cheapest Obamacare plans have high deductibles — so people who go for the lowest monthly premiums may find that they’re stuck with higher out-of-pocket expenses.
The changes will be felt by more than a sliver of the population. You may not be taxed directly to pay for the financing of Obamacare itself, which includes subsidies to help low and middle-income people buy coverage. But health insurers will be, and they’re going to pass their costs on to you. And there’s talk that employers could follow the lead of the Obamacare exchanges and shift to narrower doctor networks in a few years — because they’re running out of other ways to control their own costs.
It is not as if these trade-offs — the kind required by any big social program — were not understood by experts at the time Obamacare was being debated in 2009 and 2010. But they certainly weren’t part of the pitch Obama and the Democrats made to the rest of America — the people who shouldn’t have had to read between the lines to know what was going to happen.

The New York Times recently noted that the ACA legislation put together by Sen. Reid and his lieutenants — consulting closely with the Obama White House — was in essence a wealth-redistribution scheme.
It was designed to, by law, take resources away from the 80-plus percent of Americans who purchase health-care insurance they like and use those resources — in the words of the Times’ John Harwood —“to extend health coverage to those who had been either locked out or priced out of the market.”
Headlined, “Don’t Dare Call the Health Law ‘Redistribution’,” the October 11 Times article said the “R-word” is, “these days … particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking ‘socialized medicine.’
“But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law,” continued Harwood, “and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.”
While the Politico and New York Times articles are recent, as far back as November 2009 the Congressional Budget Office had notified Reid and other Democrats that the bill they were preparing to pass would raise premium costs for most insurance plans in the individual market.
In a letter to Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, copies of which went to Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the CBO reported that it and the staff of Joint Committee on Taxation “estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016” than if the Affordable Care Act was not passed.
The higher-cost premiums, said the CBO, reflected the new “essential health benefits” that insurance companies must include in their policies, and thus individuals seeking health insurance must purchase — such as maternity care, whether or not the individual is male or a post-menopausal female, prescription drugs, mental health, substance abuse treatment and whatever other “benefits” that the federal Secretary of Health and Human Services may decide to require.
The CBO noted that initially some individual insurance policies could be “grandfathered in” at today’s prices, but that “because of relatively high turnover in that market (as well as the incentives for many enrollees to purchase a new policy in order to obtain subsidies), it expected that “relatively few nongroup policies” would remain at the lower prices by 2016.
More recently, the American Action Forum — run by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the CBO — surveyed major insurers who represent “the vast majority of covered individuals in the U.S,” to learn how they saw the ACA impacting premiums in the individual and small group markets.

Table courtesy of American Action Forum
“In sum,” Holtz-Eakin reported, “the ACA promises massive sticker shock to the relatively young and healthy… Across all markets, the ACA will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for the young and healthy individuals and small employers…. In contrast, older and sicker individuals and small employers will be subsidized, leading to an average decline [in their health-insurance premiums] of just under 25 percent.”
In addition to the higher costs for premiums, deductibles and co-pays that Obamacare imposes on individuals, people increasingly are losing access to specialty care and their doctors — precisely the result that Sen. Reid and the Obama administration repeatedly promised would never happen. Because the ACA largely converts America’s health-insurance industry into a federally regulated public utility, insurers are extremely limited in ways they can, under the ACA, limit expenses.
One of the few paths available to them has been, notes the Washington Post, is to set up provider “networks that are far smaller than what most Americans are accustomed to.”
“A number of the nation’s top hospitals — including the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, and children’s hospitals in Seattle, Houston and St. Louis — are cut out of most plans sold on the exchange,” reports the Post.
Sen. Reid’s website today still boasts of his central role in the passage of Obamacare, listing it as one of his preeminent accomplishments.
“The Affordable Care Act," it still says, "will ensure that all Nevadans and Americans have access to quality, affordable health coverage. This reform will not only lower costs, but improve choices, competition and offer more assistance to ensure that all Americans can afford health insurance.”

http://nevadajournal.com/2014/01/09/how-harry-reid-and-senate-democrats-misrepresented-affordable-care-act/

WND EXCLUSIVE

White House nightmare: Eligibility case still alive

Judges still haven't decided challenge to Obama's tenure

Published: 01/02/2014 at 8:24 PM



Filed on appeal almost a year ago, a legal challenge against Barack Obama remains lurking in the hallways and offices of the Alabama Supreme Court, where at least two justices already have indicated an interest in the radioactive issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.


Court officials confirmed to WND today that the case brought by attorney Larry Klayman, who founded Freedom Watch, and most recently hit the headlines for a successful fight against Obama’s program run by the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, remains on the docket.
It’s been fully briefed, but the justices haven’t announced yet whether they will hear oral arguments on the dispute, even though Klayman asked for an opportunity.
The case raises some of the same arguments that appeared earlier in dozens of local, state and federal court cases over Obama’s first term.
They all argue in some fashion that because of the lack of details about Obama’s birthplace, he might be ineligible to be president under the Constitution’s requirement. That is thought to have been defined by the Founders as someone who was born of citizen parents in the country.
If the parents’ citizenship is a qualifier, Obama by his own admission fails, since he reports his father was a Kenyan student who came to study in the U.S. but never was a U.S. citizen himself. In fact, the senior Obama already was married, in Kenya, before he met and married Obama Jr.’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
This case is brought on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are asking Alabama’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.
Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”
Klayman, in a brief, argued that the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”
He pointed out that, for example, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejected Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president be at least 35.
Of significance to the case is the fact that two of the justices have expressed interest in the truth of the dispute.
In an earlier case, the justices in that very court denied a petition filed by McInnish to require Obama submit an original birth certificate before he could be placed on the state’s 2012 ballot.
At the time, Justice Tom Parker filed a special, unpublished concurrence in the case arguing that McInnish’s charges of “forgery” were legitimate cause for concern.
“Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.
Certain documentation
The “certain documentation” is the result of a Cold Case Posse investigation launched by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Arpaio’s investigation has concluded that based on the evidence, the birth certificate documentation presented by the White House as “proof positive” of Obama’s eligibility actually is fraudulent, created on a computer and not representative of any official document.
Investigators there have raised the possibility of fraud on American voters because of the document, and forgery on the part of those who created it.
Then comes Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is on the record wondering about the truth.
In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Lakin was stripped of his office and removed from the military when, on getting new orders, he said he wanted to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander-in-chief of the military, because following the orders of a fake would, in itself, be illegal.
At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
In that 2010 interview with WND, Moore said he’d seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” – as the U.S. Constitution requires of presidents – and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.
“This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”
The pending case, on appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court, said the Alabama secretary of state failed her constitutional duty to verify the eligibility of candidates.
Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”
As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that office has been elected.”
The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”
“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State is the official to cause that to happen.”
Citing the investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, Klayman says state officials “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”
“It would be paradoxical beyond measure if the real and grave question of the legitimacy of the de facto president, a question which lies at the very heart of our American constitutional government, were left unresolved for want of the simplest of documents, a birth certificate,” Klayman said in an earlier filing.
If either a bona fide birth certificate is produced or an admission is made that it does not exist, he writes, “this most important of legal questions will have been answered, the purity of Alabama’s ballot maintained, and the anxiety of Alabama citizens stilled.”
If the issue is not resolved, he said, citizens will be left with the impression “that their government was dysfunctional and has ignored their real concerns.
Moore has established his own reputation as a justice unafraid of calling the results as he sees them under the Constitution, with little regard for the consequences. A decade ago, he was removed from the same office he now holds for defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.
Klayman has described Moore as “one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”


Arpaio’s lead investigator, Mike Zullo, told WND only weeks ago that the investigation continues, and is getting close to results, as sheriff’s investigators now are officially helping the volunteer Cold Case Posse.
“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”
Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.
But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate, could be public as early as March.
In an interview with author and talk-radio host Carl Gallups of PPSimmons News and Ministry Network and the author of “The Magic Man in the Sky,” and the new “The Rabbi who Found Messiah,” Zullo said his investigation of the Obama fraud case “does not hinge on Ms. [Loretta] Fuddy.”
Fuddy, a state official in Hawaii who dealt with questions about Obama’s birth certificate, died recently in an airplane crash.
“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter,” he said. “If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned.”
Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.
“Mr. Obama has, in fact, not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”
Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.
See some of Zullo’s evidence:


More recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.
“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.
“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”
The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.
“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.
Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”
“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.
Investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.
He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an investigation of the authenticity of document.
Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann said.
“Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit,” wrote Hagmann.
“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the ‘signature’ of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit.”
Grounds for impeachment
Last month, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment.”
“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton wrote.
“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens.”
He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”
“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.
“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”
‘You tell me about eligibility’
One of the highest profile skeptics has been billionaire Donald Trump.


Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can’t, either.
Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if he would release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records.
Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him from being a “natural-born citizen.”
Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.
“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.”
Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was[n't] born in the United States, do you?”
“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”
When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.
“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.”
Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.
Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

Join in support of the critical investigation.


In a brief asking that the Alabama case be dismissed, Democrats quoted late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel.
The party insisted: “In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”
The brief scoffs at “birthers” as a “tiny cabal of zealots” and quotes Kimmel saying: “These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/white-hou...Q5mvZSLtykf.99

4 videos at link above

health care

Senator Ron Johnson Suing Over Obamacare Exemptions For Congress

by Lonely Conservative • January 5, 2014 • 3 Comments

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) announced in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he is suing the Obama administration for the Obamacare exemptions given to Congress.

On Monday, Jan. 6, I am filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to make Congress live by the letter of the health-care law it imposed on the rest of America. By arranging for me and other members of Congress and their staffs to receive benefits intentionally ruled out by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the administration has exceeded its legal authority.

The president and his congressional supporters have also broken their promise to the American people that ObamaCare was going to be so good that they would participate in it just like everyone else. In truth, many members of Congress feel entitled to an exemption from the harsh realities of the law they helped jam down Americans’ throats in 2010. Unlike millions of their countrymen who have lost coverage and must now purchase insurance through an exchange, members and their staffs will receive an employer contribution to help pay for their new plans.
It is clear that this special treatment, via a ruling by the president’s Office of Personnel Management, was deliberately excluded in the law. During the drafting, debate and passage of ObamaCare, the issue of how the law should affect members of Congress and their staffs was repeatedly addressed. Even a cursory reading of the legislative history clearly shows the intent of Congress was to ensure that members and staff would no longer be eligible for their current coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. (Read More)

He goes on to note that Congress considered having the federal government make employer contributions but rejected the idea. The law states that any subsidies are solely to be income based. But the Obama administration decided to throw that out after the very people who created this mess balked when they realized what they had done to themselves and their staffs.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2014/0...d106-314931469

One Million Mothers for Gun Rights added a new photo.

Conservative 50 Plus



AARP’s Medicare insurance partner was aware that Obamacare would hurt seniors.




Medicare Advantage insurer knew Obamacare would cause devastation for seniors



conservative50plus.com