Saturday, April 5, 2014

SIT DOWN and SHUT UP already!

‘The debate over repealing this law is over,’ he insisted. ‘The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.’

Really?

Isn't it a curious thing that in the weeks preceding Obama's April 1st Rose Garden speech Democrats were trying to hide from their participation in shoving this monstrosity down America's throats.

Isn't it a curious thing that during the time that the open enrollment period for this monstrosity the Government could not come up with a coherent number of those who have actually enrolled yet on April first they have placed a highly specific number with a decimal in it in front of us.

 Obamacare “is doing what it’s supposed to do; it’s working.

Isn't it curious that millions have been dropped from their current healthcare plans, that they have liked.  Why, because Obamacare is doing what it's supposed to do?

Isn't it curious that millions cannot see the doctors that have had for years and have come to trust as their primary defense for their families healthcare.  Why, because Obamacare is doing what it's suppose to do?

Now, according to sources who actually try to follow the "intended" consequences of Obamacare, the statistics bear a different story -- "Well, he allegedly got 7.1 million enrollees on paper, but let’s look at the myriad ways that number is reduced.

National Journal reports that an estimated 15 to 20 percent of these enrollees haven’t paid their premiums, which means they won’t be covered. So right off the bat, you have to reduce the number to between 5.7 million and 6 million, which means the figures already won’t work.

Instead of 38 percent of these enrollees being in the young and healthy category, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute reports that less than 30 percent of enrollees are younger than 35.

Also, RAND Corp. estimates that only about one-third of the new enrollees were previously uninsured, which means that two-thirds of the 5.7 million or 6 million cannot properly be counted in these figures. So we have fewer than 2 million net new enrollees. But we’re still not finished.
In addition to this, RAND estimates that nearly a million more people lost their plan because of Obamacare and couldn’t afford to replace it because Obamacare mandates coverage of additional risks and causes premiums to increase.

Does that mean we are actually down to about 1 million net new enrollees?

Not to destroy your day further, but on top of all this, Obamacare is projected to cost the government — meaning taxpayers — $2 trillion over the next decade, which isn’t even being factored in here. And how many believe that number isn’t grossly underestimated? Also, Obamacare is going to cause cuts to Medicare Advantage, which will reduce benefits or increase premiums for people by an estimated $35 to $75 per month.

As you can see, Obama is giving you only a fraction of the information you need to understand this picture and imparting the false impression that Obamacare is working now, and when premiums skyrocket next year, he can scapegoat the insurance companies and proceed to his beloved single-payer, full-blown statist scenario. - Human Events

I think the American public will show this fool and the ship of fools that have floated this turd what the real "intended consequences" will look like come November.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

What good is it for citizens to have guns when the Government has tanks?

I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MILITARY STRATEGY.. THIS ARTICLE SEEMED VERY LOGICAL TO ME... WHAT DO YOU THINK?

This is a fairly common question, that deserves an answer.

How does a gun help against a rocket fired miles away, a drone or airplane flying overhead, or a massive tank driving through your house?...

The simple answer to the question is “assymetric warfare.” Smart fighters don’t put their troops in front of the enemy’s best weapons. They use their best troops against their enemy’s week points, and exploit those weak points mercilessly.

In the hypothetical event that the federal government attempted to impose tyranny upon the citizenry of the United States, it would likely trigger the largest insurgency that the modern world has ever known.

Despite all of our awesome technology, we stink at fighting insurgencies.

We lost in Vietnam. We won the conventional war against the Iraqi military easily, but we didn’t defeat the insurgency. We’re losing Afghanistan, and our leadership has no intention of fighting to win.

All of these insurgencies have been overseas, where the supply lines were long, but relatively well-protected. The producers and supply chain itself were never threatened.

In the event of an American insurgency, it wouldn’t be a straight-up fight of partisans with rifles fighting against regime tanks, helicopters, and drones.

It would be a war where “killing” a fighter jet occurs by assassinating aircraft mechanics, or burning the homes of employees of the companies that make crucial replacement parts. It would be a war where every elected official, government employee, and skilled worker in the supply chain would be a target, every day of their lives.

In short, it would be a nasty, brutish conflict full of atrocities with no battle lines, no rear areas, no retreat, and little chance for government forces to survive over the long term.

As long as the American public outguns the military—and they do by more than 90 million firearms—no sane government would dare turn on the American people. That is the reason it is so important for the citizenry to jealously guard their Second Amendment rights.

The consequences of free speech

On the heels of the joyous news that CNN is canning the Brit (Piers Morgan) another juicy tidbit comes out of Alex Baldwin.  He has had it.  Good-bye public life.  After the endless drivel that has come out of his mouth from public humiliation of his daughter that was recorded to the gay slurs he made in public just as his MSLSD show got underway, he is reaping a whole heap of consequences that most liberals pile onto Conservatives.

While he proclaims he was misunderstood about his gay bashing remarks he is trying to show the world at the same time he say's he is leaving it that he actually sympathizes with that lifestyle.  In an article in Vulture he explains the following:

"I flew to Hawaii recently to shoot a film, fresh on the heels of being labeled a homophobic bigot by Andrew Sullivan, Anderson Cooper, and others in the Gay Department of Justice. I wanted to speak with a gay-rights group that I had researched and admired, so I called its local Honolulu branch.
The office number turned out to be some guy’s cell phone. I left him a message—I said, “I’m from out of town, I’m visiting Hawaii on business, I’d like to  get some information on your group.” After two or three more calls, he answered the phone. I said, “Yeah, I’m the guy that called about your organization.” And he said, somewhat impatiently, “Okay, well, what did you want?” I said, “Well, let me put it to you this way, Nick. Your name is Nick? Nick, let me begin by asking you a question. Who would you say, by your estimation, is the most homophobic member of the entertainment industry currently in the media?” And he paused for a long count of four and said, “Um … Alec Baldwin?”
And I said, “Ding, ding, ding, ding! Bingo, Nick, bingo! That’s who you’re talking to.”
He said, “C’mon!”
I said, “Nick, I want to come in and talk.”
I met with Nick and others from two LGBT organizations. We talked for a while about the torment of the LGBT life many of them have lived while growing up in traditional Hawaiian families. Macho fathers. Religious mothers. We talked a lot about words and their power, especially in the lives of young people."

I thought that the last paragraph was indicative of the gay rights movements plan to shove their lifestyle down everyone's throats, including Alex's.

When the LGBT people talked about the torment of growing up in "tradition families" with "Macho Fathers" and "Religious Mothers" it laid open the truth.  Traditional families are under attack as "out of the mainstream".  Next is the effeminate males that liberals are hell bent on transforming through sensitivity indoctrination as well as drugging normal boys into submissive and plyant subjects utilizing Ritalin.  Finally, it wouldn't be a hat trick unless Religion was also the target.  It seems that the LGBT group thinks it is predominately women (mothers) to blame.  Talk about liberal "war on women".   
 

CNN announces Pier's Morgan cancellation

It appears that CNN has found some reasoned decision making and decided to pull the plug on the Brit rabble rouser Piers Morgan. 

According to Politico -- CNN President Jeff Zucker has decided to bring an end to Piers Morgan’s low-rated primetime show, network sources told POLITICO on Sunday. “Piers Morgan Live” could end as early as next month, though Morgan may stay with the network in another role.

Morgan, a former British tabloid editor, replaced Larry King in the 9 p.m. hour three years ago, prior to Zucker’s tenure as president. His show earned consistently low ratings, registering as few as 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 year-old demographic earlier this week.

“CNN confirms that Piers Morgan Live is ending,” Allison Gollust, head of CNN communications, told POLITICO on Sunday after an earlier version of this post was published. “The date of the final program is still to be determined."

It only took 3 years of low ratings to come to this decision.  Though CNN reports that his show earned consistently low ratings I think it should have been reported as "few as 50,000 viewers in the barely able to breath demographic".  The key here is that he "earned" his low ratings which is another fine example of the low bar set by Obama in the job performance arena.

According to the NY Times article, Morgan admits -- "It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” he said, adding that although there had been times when the show connected in terms of audience, slow news days were problematic."

Slow news days?  This is part and parcel of his earning.  In the 3 years he has opened his mouth all things liberal and carried Democrat water, the big news stories were always there and continue to be there.  CNN, MSMBC, NBC, CBS just refuse to report the actual news.  They create slow news days.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Freemasons, Tri-Lateral, Bilderburgs

I have written extensively here at ALR about the Freemasons, Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bilderburg Group and the other "One World or New World Order" subject.  In fact, those who dare speak of these things are listed as kooks, conspiracy theorists or worse.  This subject actually has more information grounded in fact than Global Warming or even Darwin's Evolutionary theory.  Yet the environmentalists' as well as those who believe in evolution, as described by Darwin, tell us that their point of view is fact based in science.  Truth is neither global warming nor evolution are anything else but settled science.  Before I get into the meat of this writing here today that the above organizations (some as old as time itself) are all hurling us into the New World Order which is run by a handful of elite, rich and powerful families that go back millennia.  This order of powerful men have planned this since the beginning of history and the plan is to form and implement this order in much the same way Communism was run where the government (these men and their organizations) will tell us what to do, what to eat, when to die or even who should be born.  I know, sounds kooky, huh?

I wrote of this in a series of articles titled Glen Beck homework assignment,  Glen Beck homework Assignment I1 and Glen Beck homework assignment III (see links).

I would suggest you read all three to give yourself the basic starting point (where I left off) and do your own research further than I did.  You will see the evidence everywhere.  You will see the facts.  You will, in your gut understand that the feelings you evoke in your own research is not mental illness or early onset conspiracy kooky fruity cakeness, but truth in such a manner that evinces a visceral response within you.

Think about the environmentalist that brought us Global Warming and the billions of dollars that they have extorted from countries and corporations in the name of junk science.  These same people are puppets of the elite that the title speaks of that want to rule the globe in communistic fashion where the police state can do anything they wish and individual thought or desires are eradicated in the name of this order.

Think I'm unhinged?  Remember when the "ship of fools" incident in the Antartic recently where those Global Warmers went to the pole to document that the ice was disappearing (as Al Gore pontificated in his Nobel Prize winning pompousness in "an inconvenient truth") only to get stranded in a sea of ice for quite some time.  This incident is only one of many which have shown that Global Warming theory is just a way to transfer wealth (communist style).

Still think I'm off my rocker.  In spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary that Global Warming is bubkus they keep saying it is happening.  On January 19, 2014 the UN Climate Chief said the following -- "She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model."

Here we have the Climateers advocating communism.  Never mind the fact that in 2010 alone, 1.2MM Chinese died as a result of their air pollution.

In the next day or two I will be posting a new and comprehensive article that furthers the connection with some mind blowing information that I stumbled upon today.  I need time to digest the info, get further information from the source and hopefully have a certain document in hand that connects the dots undeniably.

Monday, January 20, 2014

With Friends like this, who needs enemies?

First, you must see the "Opening Statement" by Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox News as it pertains to the recently release Congressional Investigation in the terror attack in Benghazi.  The Honorable Judge Pirro is a former prosecutor that lays the facts bare for the American public on the "criminal negligence" of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  The report really doesn't tell us much that we, the American public already knew or felt to be because the deaths of our fellow Americans on the anniversary of 9/11 in 2012 could only have been one thing and one thing only.  A terror attack and not some spontaneous demonstration over a video.  It was on 9/11.

Here is the video, commentary to follow:



Here is the complete report compiled that the bi-partisan Senate Committee submitted:

Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Benghazi

Here are some excerpts from the report:

"Following the 2009 Executive order to close Guantanamo, there has been a concerted effort by this Administration to downplay the recidivist activities of former Guantanamo detainees in support of its overtly political goal to transfer as many detainees as possible to foreign countries and even to the United States.  Listening to supporters of this ill-advised Executive order, one would believe that former detainees have universally rejected their terrorist associations and are now living peaceably throughout the world.  The facts say otherwise.  The recidivism rate among all former detainees is now over 29% and rising consistently."

"Many of us were frustrated and astounded by the great pains the Administration took after the fact to avoid the clear linkage to what happened in Benghazi to the threat of international terrorism.  The Fort Hood terrorist attack by Nidal Hassan was labeled "workplace violence," despite Hasan's email communications with al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula cleric, Anwar al-Aulaqi, in the months before he open fire, killing 13 and wounding 32 military and civilian personnel, in 2009.  Another Aulaqi protégé "Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was treated as an ordinary criminal and given Miranda warnings, despite being captured after failing to detonate plastic explosives aboard a Northwest airlines flight over Detroit on December 25, 2009.  Then there was Faisal Shahzad, the incompetent Times Square bomber, whose car bomb failed to detonate in May 2010,  The Administration tried to spin Shahzad as a "one-off" lone wolf until the media discovered he had travelled to Pakistan for 5 months and trained with the Pakistan Taliban.  As with Benghazi, the Administration's obligation to provide information to Congress about those cases seem to be superseded by a desire to script the message that al-Qa'ida had been decimated or to protect a criminal investigation in spite of equally vital intelligence prerogatives."

Again, all of this disturbing information compiled by the committee has been known or at least felt by most Americans that this Administration's zeal to end the war on terror and protect us from those who wish to do us mortal harm is sleigh of hand misinformation.  The one thing that this Federal Government IS constitutionally responsible for (it's duty) is to protect the citizens from harm both foreign and domestically.  When this Administration intentionally gives aid and comfort to terror that results in loss of human life, American life, then they have failed to uphold their solemn duty.  But, to do so with malice and forethought is criminally negligent, as the Honorable Judge Jeanine states.

So, when Hillary went before the American people the day the bodies came back home and she declared Ambassador Stevens a "close and personal friend" it comes to the question -- "With friends like Hillary, who needs enemies?"