Sebelius Finally Admits Premiums Will Rise as a Result of ObamaCare – Katie Pavlich

Sebelius Finally Admits Premiums Will Rise as a Result of ObamaCare – Katie Pavlich.

bummercare-e1352561798629Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is finally admitting that the Affordable Care Act isn’t actually that affordable. Think tanks have been warning for years about the expensive cost of ObamaCare and many have already seen their health insurance premiums rise as a result of its implementation yet, the administration has denied the bill will actually increase costs for consumers until now.

Some people purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could see premiums rise because of requirements in the health-care law, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday.

Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in. Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage.

The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. She noted that the law requires plans to provide better benefits and treat all customers equally regardless of their medical claims.

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

smugpackageMost people who have “skimpy plans” have them because they either a) don’t need a fancy health insurance plan b) can’t afford a health insurance plan. Forcing consumers into plans they don’t need or can’t afford is counter productive. Not to mention, Sebelius argues consumers will see a “much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.” Better benefits? Does she mean better benefits of having fewer doctors?

Most physicians have a pessimistic outlook on the future of medicine, citing eroding autonomy and falling income, a survey of more than 600 doctors found.

Six in 10 physicians (62 percent) said it is likely many of their colleagues will retire earlier than planned in the next 1 to 3 years, a survey from Deloitte Center for Health Solutions found. That perception is uniform across age, gender, and specialty, it said.

Another 55 percent of surveyed doctors believe others will scale back hours because of the way medicine is changing, but the survey didn’t elaborate greatly on how it was changing. Three-quarters think the best and brightest may not consider a career in medicine, although that is an increase from the 2011 survey result of 69 percent.

“Physicians recognize ‘the new normal’ will necessitate major changes in the profession that require them to practice in different settings as part of a larger organization that uses technologies and team-based models for consumer (patient) care,” the survey’s findings stated.

About two-thirds of the survey responders said they believe physicians and hospitals will become more integrated in coming years. In the last 2 years, 31 percent moved into a larger practice, results found. Nearly eight in 10 believe midlevel providers will play a larger role in directing primary care.

A51n45ECEAA-RuMOr how about the better benefits of fewer life saving medical devices thanks to the innovation and job killing medical device tax in ObamaCare?

Biomedical or medical device engineering firms are already laying off workers who develop crucial medical products due to the “unforeseen” costs, or in other words, the costs of ObamaCare. Not to mention, the more money these companies pay to the government, the less money they have to invest in research and development.

The Obama administration is no longer trying to lie about ObamaCare, instead they’re simply trying to justify the lies by making everyone feel better about the so-called benefits ObamaCare will offer at a much higher price.


Auto Bailout Loss Could Exceed $70 Billion – Tea Party Nation

Auto Bailout Loss Could Exceed $70 Billion – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Seton Motley

Note: This first appeared in’s Big Government.

 Courtesy of the $83 billion auto bailout – on which we are already poised to lose more than $40 billion – We the Taxpayers are stuck with 26% stock ownership of General Motors (GM).

 Things could soon get much worse.

 Judge Set to Rule on Case That Could Reverse Auto Bailout

 A New York federal judge may rule imminently on a case that could reverse the General Motors bailout and send the company back into bankruptcy….

 At issue is a backroom deal hatched by GM to fulfill the Obama administration’s demand for a quick bankruptcy, draining the automaker of nearly all of its cash on hand and leaving it in worse shape than it was when it collapsed in 2009….

 On the eve of entering bankruptcy, the company cut a $367 million “lock-up agreement” with several major hedge funds to prevent GM Canada from failing. The agreement ensured that GM could spin-off its liabilities to “old GM,” while using a multi-billion dollar bailout to create a new company….

 “(Judge Robert Gerber) has made it very clear that he is greatly dissatisfied with the process,” one analyst told the Washington Free Beacon in October. “He’s basically implying that GM hid it from him and that reopening the sale is a possibility.”…

 “In this particular situation, there’s $1.3 billion in liabilities, but that’s just what’s officially back on the table if the court rules for old GM,” said a bankruptcy expert close to the negotiations. “If those go back on the table then everything could be back on the table and [new GM] would have to address them.”

 Those liabilities, which include old GM’s debt and product liabilities that pre-date bankruptcy, are valued at $30 billion, a sum that would wipe out the company’s $34.6 billion cash reserves.

 We may be on the verge of adding another $31.3 billionat least – to the auto bailout loss tally, pushing the total to over $70 billion.

 The reversal would cause GM’s stock to plummet even further.  And again, we own 26% of the mess – meaning we’d lose even more coin.

 And then there are the other, troublingly similar lawsuits.

 Spyker Sues GM for $3 Billion Over Saab Bankruptcy

Spyker claims that GM purposely sent Saab into bankruptcy by blocking a deal with a Chinese car manufacturer.

 And more lawsuits will follow should the entire bankruptcy be undone.  How many millions or billions in GM legal fees and potential damages will this cost?

“(I)f all the liabilities come back to roost, short that stock,” the bankruptcy expert said.

 We the Taxpayers wish we could.


Hurricane Sandy’s Message to America – Tea Party Nation

Hurricane Sandy’s Message to America – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

When Mother Nature demonstrates her extraordinary power, I always hope that people will draw a lesson from it, but they never seem to. Hurricane Sandy is just the latest example of the futility and foolishness of thinking that humans can do anything about a hurricane or similar demonstration of who is really in charge. It is the planet. Not us.

This suspension of common sense is worsened when our President goes on television, as he did last Friday on MTV, to say “I believe the scientists, who say that we are putting too much carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and it is heating the planet and it is going to have a severe effect.” This is literally junk science, long since debunked by legions of scientists who know that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with the Earth’s temperature. The planet has been in a cooling cycle since 1998.

I keep hoping, too, that lacking the vital lifeblood of our nation–electricity—millions of people sitting around in the dark will ask themselves where it comes from, what generates it, how does it get to their home, and perhaps even why its cost keeps increasing even though the U.S. sits atop enough coal and natural gas to provide affordable power for two hundred years at current consumption rates.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in March of this year electricity from coal has fallen from 50% production to less than 40% by the end of 2011. Other sources include natural gas at 26%, nuclear at 22%, hydroelectric at 7% and “other” was said to be 6%. It should be noted that oil is a transportation fuel and not used to generate electricity. I believe that the amount that solar and wind produces is more likely closer to three percent. It is unreliable and uncompetitive and requires a traditional plant as backup when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun is obscured by clouds and, of course, at night.

Not surprisingly, the environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club are already beating the drums about “climate change”, asserting “unpredictable, extreme weather.” The planet is always in a state of climate change if for no other reason that it is subject to the seasons. Blaming extreme weather on “climate change” is just a code for keeping the “global warming” hoax alive. The only reason President Obama talks about climate change is his hope that a carbon tax can be imposed to raise more money for the government to waste.

Electricity is not magic. Some form of energy must be burned to generate it and then it must be transmitted by a huge, very old grid to consumers.

In January of this year, The North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that the reliability of the grid was in jeopardy. Thanks to the Obama administration’s (i.e. EPA) relentless attack on coal, the NERC noted that beyond the 38 gigawatts of electricity capacity that has already been announced to retire, it estimated that another 35 to 59 gigawatts will come off-line by 2018 depending on the “scope and timing” of EPA regulations. If you think the downed lines that Hurricane Sandy will produce are a problem, consider a future in which the electricity they are supposed to distribute will be significantly reduced.

What most Americans don’t know is that coal is the fuel of choice to generate electricity in many other nations of the world. Just five years ago it produced fifty percent of our electricity, but today it is less than forty percent, the lowest share since data began to be collected in 1949. For example, China’s coal consumption grew 9.7% between 2010 and 2011. Last year China consumed 49% of the world’s coal supply. India’s coal consumption increased 9.2%

While the President blathers on MTV about CO2 emissions, my friend Dr. Jay Lehr, the Science Director of The Heartland Institute, dispatches that nonsense noting that “A simple volcanic eruption will cancel a decade of effort” to reduce emissions.

“Today,” says Dr. Lehr, “it is our government that is attempting to thwart our energy independence by blocking nearly every effort to develop our resources through completely unreasonable restrictions placed on us by the EPA and the Department of the Interior, and horrible policies of the Department of Energy which choose to throw unconscionable sums of money at renewable energy projects…”

Ultimately, while millions of Americans light candles in the dark or hope their flashlight batteries hold out, we have to ask WHY the Obama administration has waged a war on the provision of electricity.
This is a deliberate policy to weaken the nation’s capacity to function at every level and yet we are days away from an election where millions of Americans will vote to reelect Obama and send his Democratic Party minions to Congress.

It is in line with the Obama administration’s deliberate policy of reducing our military capacity on land, sea and air.

The only silver lining in the distress and disruption of Hurricane Sandy may be the awakening of voters to the critical need for more, not less, production of electricity, for improvements to the national grid, for more oil production for our transportation needs, and concurrent with this, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that such efforts would produce and billions it would generate to begin to reduce the national debt, now in excess of $16 trillion.

Long ago, the cartoon character, Pogo, famously said, “We have met the enemy and it is us.”
The enemy, I would suggest, is President Barack Hussein Obama, his many shadowy, unaccountable “czars” influencing energy policies, his Cabinet Secretaries of Energy and the Interior, and the rogue Environmental Protection Agency that is set to unleash regulations that will destroy the economy, aided and abetted by the nation’s environmental organizations.

That’s Hurricane Sandy’s message to America.


Obama: As Weak on Global Internet Takeover as on Global Islamist Uprising – Tea Party Nation

Obama: As Weak on Global Internet Takeover as on Global Islamist Uprising – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Seton Motley

Note: This first appeared in PJ Tatler.


The Barack Obama administration has been engaged in non-stop global bungle-buffoonery.  And that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt – it may be that these horrific anti-American Interest results are their intention.

 An example: Allegedly, President Obama — given his partial upbringing in Islamic Indonesia – was going to have a better understanding of and relationship with the Muslim World.

 But a year after the Obama-backed “Arab Spring,” at least twenty U.S. Embassies were attacked on this year’s 9-11 anniversary.  In Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were brutally murdered.

 And as the Muslim World rose nearly as one against us, the administration issued pathetic statements/apologies, generated much sterner stuff against Governor Mitt Romney and lied their faces off about why it all was happening.

 And all the while the President campaigned and raised coin for his reelection effort and blew off world leaders to instead meet with David Letterman and the ladies of The View.

 Yet another global demonstration of Obama Administration fecklessness.  The president extends to our enemies an open hand – and they crush us again and again with their clenched fists.

 Not all the attacks on U.S. interests are violent.  Sometimes the thugs dress up in suits and ties and head to Turtle Bay for a little United Nations (UN) America-abuse.

 Looming before us is a prospective titanic international attack on American Internet interests.  The Web wing of the UN is the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – and they in December will vote on whether or not to power grab much greater control of all things ‘Net.

 The Obama administration has expressed their opposition to ITU Web-control passage.  As on all things, Obama’s opinion has meant to the rest of the world exactly nothing.

US Ambassador: Internet Fee Proposal Gaining Momentum

 U.S. Ambassador Terry Kramer warned on Friday that a proposal to give a United Nations agency more control over the Internet is gaining momentum in other countries….

 Powerful influence, Mister President.

 (A) proposal by the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association could force websites like Google, Facebook and Netflix to pay fees to network operators around the world.

 Kramer said the idea of an international Internet fee is “gaining more interest in the African states and also in the Arab states.”

 Oh – the same Arab states that are setting ablaze our embassies and consulates.  Here again is another potential clenched fist to our face.

 Clearly the vaunted President Obama persuasiveness is again failing him – and us.

(Kramer) said the United States delegation to the conference will have to redouble its efforts to convince other countries that the proposal would only stifle innovation and economic growth.

Seriously, genuinely – good luck with that.  We absolutely need to stop this US-and-global-economy-crushing proposal.

 The Obama Administration’s demonstrably degraded world standing has weakened our efforts to stop this UN power grab.  Another problem is the administration has been on this issue utterly schizophrenic.

 While proclaiming opposition to an international Internet takeover, they have stateside illegally imposed multiple Web takeovers of their own – like the all-encompassingly-bad Network Neutrality and forced-cellular-network-sharing.

 So we have an enfeebled Obama administration standing on the world stage, asking the United Nations to – PLEASE!?! – “Do as we say – not as we do.”


The UN Gun Control Treaty Is Bad for Gun Owners Everywhere – Chuck Norris –


The UN Gun Control Treaty Is Bad for Gun Owners Everywhere – Chuck Norris –

Last time I checked, Americans were responsible for making our own laws. We do not invite foreign nations to have a say in how we govern ourselves within our own borders. Yet if you follow what’s been going on with the United Nations this year, you know that the USA came perilously close to having other countries dictate our gun laws. And the fight isn’t over yet.

The United Nations has been debating an arms trade treaty for nearly a decade now. Though the treaty is ostensibly focused on military arms, it has long been clear that the majority of U.N. delegates consider our personal firearms to be crying out for international regulation, as well. The focus of the treaty would be a demand that governments regulate the sale and possession of firearms worldwide — all of them, including yours and mine.

Though I believe that firearms should not be in the wrong hands, the proposed terms of this global gun control treaty would overreach wildly into regulating the sale of firearms to law-abiding citizens. In other words, the proposed treaty is a mechanism for Iran and other tyrannical powers to have a say in your gun ownership.

The George W. Bush administration wisely opposed this concept, asserting that any agreement to regulate private gun ownership would represent a threat to our Second Amendment freedoms. This proclamation was the death knell for the first U.N. gun control treaty conference more than 10 years ago.

But bad ideas at the U.N. never go away; they just fade until the political climate changes. Treaty discussions went underground for several years — until the Obama administration announced a willingness to consider a new treaty, as long as the parties operated under “consensus.”

The debate reached a fever pitch during a monthlong marathon negotiation session in July. The goal was to disgorge a treaty in time for the Obama administration to sign it before Election Day. The draft treaty was odious on its face. Among other things, it would have required the United States to “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms,” register the identity of the “end user” of those firearms and then report the user’s information to a U.N.-based gun registry. In several drafts, the treaty would have mandated that every round of ammunition be tracked globally.

What’s really ironic here is that the United States already has the most comprehensive system in the world for regulating international arms transfers. Other nations could achieve the stated goals of the treaty process by simply emulating our protocols. But the reality is that the treaty was actually intended as a mechanism to submit our unique Second Amendment guarantees to international inspection — and condemnation.

As I have mentioned, the treaty negotiations broke down this summer, and that is a good thing. But that doesn’t mean the U.N. is giving up the fight. It’s just reducing it into smaller pieces. In fact, in late August, an umbrella organization of 23 separate U.N. agencies, known as the Coordinating Action on Small Arms, adopted the first portion of International Small Arms Control Standards. The ISACS text is made up of 33 separate modules, some 800 pages in total. And they’re just getting started.

What can we do? We can ensure that we have a president who will not support the treaty and a Senate that will not ratify it. That’s not a one-time commitment. Remember that once a treaty is enacted, it can be picked up at any time by a president and Senate. There are smaller gun control treaties that have been floating around the Senate for ratification since 1998.

What can you do? You can make sure that you and every freedom-loving American you know is registered to vote. I’m proud to serve as the honorary chairman of Trigger The Vote, the National Rifle Association‘s nonpartisan campaign to register voters who support the Second Amendment. We’ve made it easy on our website; all the tools to register are there, at If you’re already registered, you probably know someone who isn’t. Share the stakes with that person, and urge him or her to join the rolls of informed voters.

Throughout my life, I’ve been committed to preserving our freedom from threats, both foreign and domestic. This proposed U.N. global gun control treaty may not be an “invasion” in the classic sense of the word, but believe me; over time, it represents the potential for encroachment of the greatest kind. Protect your rights by registering to vote today.


Executive Order: Obama’s Cyber Security Power Grab – Tea Party Nation


Executive Order: Obama’s Cyber Security Power Grab – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Seton Motley

Note: This first appeared in’s Big Government.


As we have oft noted, President Barack Obama is killing the Internet.

Bad policy after bad policy. Often illegally imposed. As a result, the Tech Sector – 1/6 of our nation’s economy, as big as health care – is hemorrhaging jobs.

Tech Layoffs Hit 3-year High in First Half of 2012

Everything the President is doing to the Web is lawless.

The last time Congress addressed Tech policy they intentionally left the ‘Net completely alone.  They authorized no one to regulate the Web in any way. So of course the Obama Administration has been in full-on regulatory Internet assault mode.

The objective of all this Administration is the same as its over-action in all sectors of the private economy – to make it untenable for all private interests, leaving voters stuck with the government as our sole provider.

 he Obama Administration continues its autocratic drive unabated. They are forcing successful cellular phone companies to allow their competitors access to their networks (read: property) at absurdly low government-mandated rates.

Which removes completely the incentive for anyone to invest in a network.  Why would you, when you can instead wait for someone else to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars to build it, and then avail yourself of government-mandated cheap ingress?

In other “light touch” regulation news, the Administration is contemplating an illegal Internet tax.

To further over-fund the 15.7% phone tax, an $8 billion-per-year spread-the-wealth-around universal broadband connectivity program that has been proposed.

And now the latest outstanding free market Administration mess:

White House Draft Cyber Order Promotes Voluntary Critical Infrastructure Protections

Only within the confines of the government (and the media) does an “order” promote “voluntary” actions on the part of the private sector.

The White House so far has failed to get a bill passed by both houses of Congress to improve the cybersecurity of the nation’s critical infrastructure, so it wants to take an alternative approach.

Ummm, no.  If you’ve “failed to get a bill passed by both houses of Congress” – you don’t have an alternative approach.  But that hasn’t stopped this Administration yet, so why should it now?

The administration has created a draft executive order detailing how, within its authority, it would improve the information assurance of the nation’s critical infrastructure, such as the power grid and financial industries.

The draft EO includes eight sections, including the requirement to develop a way for industry to submit threat and vulnerability data to the government.

“Within its authority?”  Again, the Administration doesn’t have any.  And who determines what constitutes “threat and vulnerability data” – the Feds?  They are certainly light years away from being legally able to force the industry to violate their customers’ privacy – and their contracts – and turn over our data to the government.

 Besides which, we need transparency FROM government – not transparency TO government.

90 days after the EO is signed by President Barack Obama, the cybersecurity council — led by the Homeland Security Department secretary — must develop a report to determine which agencies should regulate which parts of the critical infrastructure….

Under earlier cyber bills, DHS would take the lead in regulation, and that concerned some lawmakers and experts. It was a major sticking point in moving forward with a vote on a comprehensive bill.

I can’t imagine why placing “man-caused disaster” DHS Secretary Janet “The System Worked” Napolitano in charge of this huge panoply of private rights’ violations would be a “major sticking point” for some of our elected officials.

(A) National Security Council spokeswoman in an email statement (said) “We are not going to comment on ongoing internal deliberations.”

These are supposed to be external deliberations – conducted in Congress, and commented upon by We the People.

 This isn’t Constitutional republicanism – this is authoritarian rule by Obama fiat.

 The article goes on and on detailing many facets of the Administration’s totally illegal Cyber Security Executive Order.  It is wrong-headed, top-down and government-centric.  It violates or eviscerates private property rights and numerous privacy protections of We the People.

 A far better way is to – like with National Security – contract out to people who know what they’re doing.  The Defense Department doesn’t build bombers – Northrop Grumman does.

 Likewise, it would be far better to have the experts at Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and the like handle Cyber Security.  Rather than having the at once dictatorial and incompetent Obama Administration – or any Administration – take the reins.

 And to arrive at said solution via the Constitutional deliberative process, with a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President.

 We must bring an end to these terrible power grabs – executed to impose terrible policy.


American free speech rights under attack by Muslim extremists — and by our own government – Tea Party Nation

American free speech rights under attack by Muslim extremists — and by our own government – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Victoria Knox

Muslims cannot reconcile the dual nature of the First Amendment, which simultaneously protects someone’s right to practice his or her religion and protects someone else’s right to ridicule that religion. The events that have unfolded over the past couple of days show that President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appear to have the same problem.


The Obama administration initially blamed violent attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi on a YouTube video mocking Mohammad. The embassy issued an entreaty Tuesday morning meant to deter the impending siege instead of getting permission from Amb. Anne Patterson to allow U.S. Marines guarding the facility to carry ammo so they could effectively repel an attack they had been warned about by Egypt’s General Intelligence Service. Astonishingly, it seems not to have occurred to anyone in the Obama administration to fortify the defenses of our embassies in anticipation of a terror plot on the September 11 anniversary. Consequently, Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other employees were murdered, and Stevens’ corpse was defiled and dragged through the streets – a ghoulish trophy. 


Although diplomatic personnel in Cairo should have known that trying to appease the mob would only embolden them, the statement and a series of Tweets posted over the next several hours denounced the people behind the video (more on that later) for exercising their free speech rights: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”


While all this was going on in Egypt, news reports began trickling out about the murderous attack on the Libyan embassy. When additional details of the scope of the horrific violence were reported, Clinton issued a statement echoing the language the Cairo embassy had been using: “I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today… The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”


 As the situation in Benghazi deteriorated, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also called FL pastor Rev. Terry Jones – who was promoting the video – to ask him to consider disassociating himself from it so as not to fuel more violence and endanger our troops in Afghanistan. Jones, who had once threatened to burn the Koran to protest Muslim hostility to free speech  (eighth item on the page), now found himself being strong-armed by the government of his own country, which seemed uninterested in his First Amendment rights. 


Two days after Republican nominee Mitt Romney slammed the Obama administration for reflexively sympathizing with the “feelings” of the violent mobs instead of condemning the attacks, Clinton attempted to diffuse the political fallout by issuing another statement explaining that America’s Constitution enshrines free speech rights – but also suggesting that the people who made the video were wrong to have exercised those rights, Reuters reports:


“The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message,” Clinton said at the start of talks with senior Moroccan officials in Washington.


“To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.”


Ironically, though Obama accused Romney of a “tendency to shoot first and aim later,”  because he criticized the administration’s handling of the embassy attacks “before all the facts were known,” he and Clinton were both guilty of making assumptions, casting blame, issuing statements and condemning the exercise of free speech rights before all the facts were known.


You see, the film was not the cause of the attacks, but only a pretext for a meticulously planned terror attack – the real aim of which was to coerce the U.S. to release blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently imprisoned for life sentence for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. And evidence is emerging that the film was made by an Egyptian to protest the denigration of his religion by Muslims in his country. 

The video, a 14-minute trailer for a two-hour film called “Innocence of Muslims,” was produced by a man who initially passes himself off as an Israeli Jew named Sam Bacile who made his living as a CA real estate developer. He later admits to The Associated Press that his real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and that he is an Egyptian Copt who wanted to publicize the mistreatment of Christians by Muslims. He adds that he thinks Islam is a cancer and that his film was making a political statement. (Nakoula, who pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges and sentenced to 21 months in prison, has used several aliases besides Sam Bacile.)


With the film being blamed for the murders of four people and possibly becoming the catalyst for additional murders, the 80-member cast and crew issue a statement insisting that they were “grossly misled about its intent and purpose”  of the film – then called “Desert Warriors.” Actress Cindy Lee Garcia tells Gawker that the inflammatory dialogue depicting Mohammad as a fraud and a child molester was not in the original script, and had been dubbed into the film during post production. An excerpt of a version of the video that had been dubbed into Arabic and posted on YouTube was broadcast on Egyptian TV on September 9th.


Courageous Christians United founder Steve Klein tells AP that he warned, “you’re going to be the next Theo van Gogh” when the aspiring filmmaker first approached him for advise on First Amendment issues.


So the upshot is that Nakoula exercised his free speech rights under the First Amendment in an effort – however misguided – to enable his people to practice their religion freely in Egypt, a country where they have no First Amendment rights. Our government should not have apologized for Nakoula having or using these Constitutional rights. This is not the American Way.


And it is not in the American character to knuckle under to a bully. Muslims consider the ridicule of Allah or Mohammad and the desecration of the Koran blasphemous, but this is not why they explode in a murderous rage at an insult that other societies take in stride. The purpose of the extreme violence is to ensure that their G-d, their prophet and the Koran become inviolate – which means that in countries with a free speech tradition, Islam and the Koran enjoy a special – superior – status to other religions and other holy books, which are subject to criticism and ridicule. This is the preliminary step in promoting Islamic supremacism and training infidels to become dhimmies in their own countries.

Voters Abandon Global Warming Fears – Tea Party Nation


Voters Abandon Global Warming Fears – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Former President Jimmy Carter will address the Democratic Party convention via a televised address, but former Vice President Al Gore and candidate for President will be no where in sight.

The leading advocate for global warning will be conspicuous in his absence, but that doesn’t mean that the greatest hoax of modern times will not be mentioned. It has been a consistent theme of the Obama administration, particularly to justify the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to attack the energy and business sectors of the nation’s economy.

As this is being written, the morning of the start of the Democratic Party convention, one wonders if the tired, thoroughly debunked claims that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing a warming that does not exist and that humans are also causing it will be mentioned.

On the night that Obama had won his primary victory over Hillary Clinton’s bid to be the party’s presidential candidate, among his promises and claims, he said, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” You cannot get more absurd than that. It would translate into the administration’s push for cap-and-trade legislation (regarding CO2 emissions) that was rejected by a Democrat-controlled Senate.

Obama’s claim did not go unnoticed by Mitt Romney who, during his acceptance speech, said, “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.” The global warming hustlers were apoplectic in their denunciations of Romney, but his promise received a standing ovation.

The administration has become famous for the billions wasted on so-called green jobs, green energy, and controlling greenhouse gases. It is essential to understand that CO2 has never caused any of the warming cycles the Earth has been through over 4.5 billion years. It shows up after climate cycle change occurs. Moreover, the oceans that cover 71% of the Earth surface both stores and releases CO2.

Prior to Earth Day in 2011, a Gallup poll revealed just how Americans felt about various environmental issues. Asked about a variety of concerns, the respondents rated global warming dead last with 48% saying they were either not much or not at all concerned about it.

The decades of apocalyptic claims and warnings have given way to reality. There have been no massive famines, no complete melting of the north or south poles, no increase in natural phenomenon such as hurricanes, no mass extinctions of various species. By 1998, the planet began a new cooling cycle, one that panicked the perpetrators of the global warming myth.

In 2009, the leak of emails between the researchers whose deliberately false “data” was the basis for global warming claims revealed that the cabal behind the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports were plotting to suppress the truth. The leak would become known as “Climategate.”

Just prior to the Democratic Party convention, President Obama issued yet another Executive Order, this one calling for “investment”, i.e., more spending, on cogeneration plants in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by deploying “cleaner and more efficient energy production in the country by working around political resistance to climate change and ‘green’ energy legislation on Capitol Hill.”

In reality, you cannot “save” energy. You can only use less of it and the Obama administration has done everything in its power to ensure that there will be less by deterring the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada—estimated to generate 20,000 new jobs—and by waging a war on coal. Coal mines and coal-fired plants are being closed. Oil continues to be discovered in the U.S. but not on federally controlled lands, nor can it be explored and extracted offshore where billions of barrels exist.

In effect, the Obama administration has been the most anti-energy administration in recent times while, at the same time, wasting billions on solar energy companies that have gone bankrupt and on wind power which, combined, represent less than 3% of the electricity generated nationwide and which would not exist were they were not, like ethanol, completely dependent on government mandates and subsidies.

It will be interesting to see how many of the convention speakers make any reference to global warming, carbon dioxide, or the real sources of energy, coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power..

Throwing a bone to the environmentalists, it is likely that President Obama will make a passing reference to global warming and energy, but it is not likely that the “planet will begin to heal” as it grows colder in a completely natural cooling cycle that threatens to tip over into a new ice age.

There are real problems to be addressed, high unemployment, a lagging “recovery”, a fiscal crisis that will occur on January 1st unless Congress acts to extend tax cuts and puts off a massive sequestration of funding to defense and other sectors. In the end, it is likely we will be told that the last four years were all George W. Bush’s fault.

© Alan Caruba, 2012


Arming the Government Against Americans – Tea Party Nation


Arming the Government Against Americans – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

The push to disarm Americans has been around a long time. An estimated ninety million Americans own guns legally and in states that permit concealed carry the crime rate drops precipitously by comparison with others that do everything they can to make the purchase and carry of firearms difficult.

Gun ownership in America is the highest since 1993 with estimates of 300 million guns owned by citizens. Ownership crosses political party lines and other demographic cohorts. From its earliest days as a nation, the Founding Fathers were united in the need for an armed citizenry as a response to the potential tyranny of a government that might seek to impose its will on Americans through force.

The notion that one can keep criminals from acquiring firearms is idiotic. In cities like Chicago with laws that all but deny gun ownership, the murder rate is off the charts. By June, 228 residents of Chicago had been killed, compared to 44 troops in Afghanistan’s combat zones.

There’s a reason gun sales in America soared after the election of Barack Obama. Nobody except his brainwashed minions trust him. Over the past three and a half years he has issued more than 900 Executive Orders, many of which grant him and the federal government extraordinary control over all aspects of life for Americans. The hallmark of every totalitarian regime is gun control, the disarming of citizens.

This is, after all, a President who disparaged Americans who he said, “cling to their religion and their guns.”

As columnist, Chuck Baldwin wrote in 2007, “One thing the national news media will always ignore is the practice of lawful self-defense. For example, most people are probably not aware of the fact that American citizens use a firearm to defend themselves more than 2.4 million times every year. That is more than 6,500 times every day.”

“This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Furthermore, of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault. And in less than eight percent of those occasions is a shot actually fired. The vast majority of the time (92%), the mere presence of a firearm helps to avert a major crime from occurring.”

Why then is the Obama administration in the process of purchasing millions of bullets for agencies, some of whom have nothing to do with national defense?

In May I wrote about an Ashville, North Carolina citizen who wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency inquiring about the address of an employee who gained overnight fame when it was reported he wanted to “crucify” oil companies. Two EPA agents, fully armed, showed up without notice at his front door.

Why does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration need to purchase ammunition? NOAA is devoted to studying the weather and providing notice of events such as hurricanes. Why would meteorologists need to be armed?

Why does the Social Security Administration need to purchase ammunition? A spokesman for the SSA compared its investigators to state or local police officers who are armed while on “official duty.”

Why would the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) specifically purchase 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition in March and follow up with an additional 750 million? In a recent article in, retired Major General Jerry Curry noted in The Daily Caller, “This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen.” The article asked whether Obama would seek to hold onto power “by any means possible.”

Granted that DHS is charged with protecting the homeland, but is there any indication that the nation is under threat of an invasion and, if so, isn’t it the job of the U.S. military to respond to such a threat?

Or perhaps the answer is the belief within the Obama administration that it might face a massive insurrection if it tried to take over the nation by delaying the November elections or imposing martial law as the result of a contrived national threat?

A recent issue of Small Arms Journal contained an article titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It game-played in full operational detail how the Army would put down a local Tea Party insurrection. Does anyone except those inside the Obama administration believe that the Tea Party would ever engage in such an effort?

This is the same administration actively trying to suppress a Congressional investigation into operation “Fast and Furious” that encouraged the transmittal of firearms to Mexican drug cartels, allegedly to track them, but instead some were used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol agent. So guns for the cartels are okay, but guns for law-abiding Americans are not. The Attorney General has been held in contempt of Congress for his failure to be forthcoming in the investigation.

The massive purchase of ammunition by agencies that have little or no relationship to the nation’s security raises questions and concerns that cannot be dismissed or ignored. They are apiece with a variety of all actions the Obama administration has taken that suggest the suppression by force of any response Americans might take if they believed it intended to impose a dictatorship.

© Alan Caruba, 2012


Is There Anyone Obama Won’t Betray? – John Ransom – Townhall Finance


Is There Anyone Obama Won’t Betray? – John Ransom – Townhall Finance .

Bravo to the boys and girls in the military/intelligence community who have stood toe-to-to with Obama for jeopardizing the sources and methods that took out Osama bin Laden.

While the liberal press tries to make hay out of the fact that the folks behind the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc have…gotcha!…“Republican” ties, I’m thinking well thank God for Republicans in the military/intelligence community then. These are folks, well known to me, who have been at war since 2001, while the rest of America has been at the mall.

And why aren’t heroes like, [cough, hack] John Kerry– largely a Gilbert and Sullivan sailor- who was so brave, that he spent four whole months in Vietnam; why aren’t they speaking out on behalf of service members?

Oh, that’s right. Democrats lost their moral compass while experimenting with LSD in the late 1960s.

So we should just give them a pass.      

The OPSEC group has a serious point, however: It’s bad enough that Democrats, like John Kerry, describe the Global War on Terror as a “bumper sticker.” But when the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States plays politics with intelligence and the lives of our combat troops, you wonder if its not just LSD flashbacks from the 1960s, but perhaps LSD flash-forwards.

Of course, Obama has no need of drugs per se. When you are the Chosen One, all you need is yourself. Obama’s self-love is much more powerful than LSD.              

For example, the consternation we have seen between the U.S. and Pakistan for the past year signals the likelihood that at least some portion of the Pakistani government participated in the tip off that killed bin Laden.

The public row in the media between the U.S. and Pakistan was staged by the Pakistanis largely to cover up the fact that the Pakistani government turned on bin Laden. The fight was staged by us to help cover up the fact that they knew that we knew that they knew bin Laden was there for some time.  

The average Pakistani revered bin Laden as a hero. So you can understand why the Pakistani government wouldn’t want to own up to participating in the operation that took him out.

And the Obama administration has been happy to help advance the cover, even if it jeopardized American lives and the lives of our intelligence assets, by giving up a key person who helped us. Subsequently, Dr. Shakil Afridi, a covert agent operating for the United States, was sentenced to 33 years in prison in Pakistan for helping the CIA confirm the whereabouts of bin Laden.  

The thought has hardly crossed Obama’s mind that maybe it’s time to stop supporting a country that supported America’s public enemy number one for so long. And can you blame him? Dr. Afridi’s Facebook page only has 38 members. Turning over Dr Afridi to thje Pakistanis was an easy call for Obama. When has Obama actually cared about 38 votes?

I guess there are just some things that the American people take lying down now- like betrayal of a friend. 

Obama has made it quite clear that U.S. intelligence assets and U.S. military assets are just the chump change in a strategy of world conquest that largely only exists between the big ears of the One.

Think “Winning.”

Likewise, Obama’s sucked up to China and Russia as well.

A small insertion in a budget item passed last year bans scientific co-operation between the U.S and our largest creditor, the People’s Republic of China. This information according to Congressman Frank Wolf.

China, Wolf charges, has also been involved in anti-American activities that have harmed national interests.

“Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA), a long-time critic of the Chinese government who chairs a House spending committee that oversees several science agencies,” said Forbes “inserted the language into the spending legislation to prevent NASA or OSTP from using federal funds ‘to …collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company.’”

It’s been an open secret that the Chinese have sponsored a series of cyber attacks on U.S. interests for the last five years, including DoD facilities, intelligence centers and even the White House.

Wolf’s own office computers, which contain information about dissident Chinese, have also been hacked from inside China.  

Some intelligence types think that in addition to targeting military secrets, China’s trying dry runs aimed at taking out our command and control.  

But like the Pakistani drama, the Obama administration’s words of condemnation regarding Chinese spying are mostly meant to keep us citizens happy.

The Obama administration would never cut off their supply of money by quibbling with China about espionage and national security.

Why would they? They can’t even stand up to Pakistan or Russia.

Or Syria.  

Obama has decided to ignore the prohibition inserted into the budget by Wolf regarding collaboration with the Chinese.

It’s business as usual with China.    

There is a growing unease amongst national security types that foreign policy and national security decisions are being made by the administration with an eye towards re-election rather than with the best interest of the United States in mind.

While the same charge can be leveled at any administration, Obama’s team, notably less than subtle in matters requiring executive ability, tend to fall back on campaign mode when faced with hard choices.

They pick what’s politically expedient rather than what’s smart, presidential or right. 

Hence Robert Gates decision to exit stage right at the Department of Defense and Hillary Clinton’s decision to exit stage left at the State Department after the end of the term.

Will there be anyone competent left in Obama’s administration if he were to win a second term?

The operation that got bin Laden isn’t helping the administration in the national security community, either.

Far from it.

Many in the community resent the emphatic “I” used by Obama when announcing the operation.

But that’s not the worst of it.

By changing the story 26 times in a quest for personal glory, devoid of any personal responsibility, Obama has left the impression that Navy SEALs killed unarmed women and an unarmed, old man, while the One shot and killed bin Laden, personally.

No amount of face time with the commander-in-chief can repair that rift. The chain of command is supposed to support the troops who have followed their orders.

One can argue the merits of continuing the friendship with Pakistan and China and Russia, while ignoring their anti-American activities.  

But leaving members of the military out to dry, well, that’s just un-American.

Just ask the folks OPSEC.

They have the bumper stickers to prove it.