(IBD) CSI ObamaCare: Affordable Care Act To Have Own Police - You Have The Right To Remain Silent

Police State: The administration is building a detective  squad that will target consumers and companies that don't follow ObamaCare's  rules. The game of "good cop, bad cop" has arrived in American health care.
It was bad enough to know that an Internal Revenue Service that targets the  political opponents of the Obama administration between partying on the taxpayer  dime would be in charge of monitoring compliance with ObamaCare's individual  mandate via our tax returns.
Now, the Daily Mail, which lodged a Freedom of Information Act with Health  and Human Services, reports that the agency has hired a bevy of criminal  investigators as we continue to learn what is in the Orwellian-named Affordable  Care Act.
Never did we imagine that buying insurance and going to the doctor or  providing coverage to employees would come under the full-time purview of  federal criminal investigators.
On the day in 2010 that President Obama signed the bill into law, HHS got  authority from the Office of Personnel Management to make as many as 1,814 new  hires under an emergency "Direct Hiring Authority" order.
The agency was authorized to hire 50 criminal investigators to ensure  compliance with mandatory provisions and regulations. But as is typical with an  administration with no respect for the Constitution and the law, HHS  unilaterally upped that number to 86.
Of course these investigators won't be digging into the Obama  administration's lack of compliance with its own law. A president doesn't have  the legal authority to decide what parts of the law he wants to obey; the  Constitution does not grant him that authority.
But that's exactly what Obama is doing with Obama-Care.

Rush Limbaugh Inks New 3-Year Deal, Contract 'Really Never in Doubt'

Calling himself America's "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector," conservative talk superstar Rush Limbaugh announced a new three-year deal on Friday with Cumulus Media, which includes a move from WABC to WOR in New York.

"The bottom line is, no change for you," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Wherever you're listening to this radio show today, you're gonna be able to hear it on Jan. 2, 3, whenever I get back from the traditional Christmas break. There will be no interruption to you. There will be no change. The radio program is as strong or stronger than ever. It will be everywhere you are used to listening to it now."

Politico reported last month that Cumulus Media would not renew "The Rush Limbaugh Show" after negotiations with Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes the program.

"The last month, if you read Politico or anything that linked to Politico or CNN or ABC or anywhere else, you were reading that it was over for me. That I was bad news for broadcast stations," Limbaugh told listeners. "They could not sell advertising and all of this was because of me and the controversy I engender and therefore I wasn't gonna be gone overnight, but three to four years, and that's it. Fini, totala completa, out of there, gone. Once and for all the left would be rid of me."

On Friday, Limbaugh said that the yearlong negotiations ended this week with a new deal, and that "it was really never in doubt, but I don't want to do my own version of negotiating here."

He compared his situation to President Obama's promise that Americans could keep their health insurance.

"If you like this station, you get to keep this station," he said. "I'm not gonna take this station away from you and force you to go to a new one, as Obama's doing with your healthcare. He said if you like your doctor, you like your plan, you get to keep it. No, you don't. You're gonna lose your doctor; you're gonna lose your plan."

Then he dubbed himself the "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector." He attributed the move from WABC in the highly coveted New York market to the fact that WOR is owned by his syndication partner, Clear Channel Communications.

He added, "And as the Doctor of Democracy, the deal you have with your doctor isn't changing. You get to keep your doctor. You get to keep your plan. You get to keep your station. Nothing's changing, and it really never was gonna change," he explained. "These were just public negotiations, which normally don't occur in public. But the media got involved.

"So the point is, the past month in the drive-by media I was over, it was finished," he said. "You better listen while you can because I was gone, I was ineffective, I was a has-been, it was old news, whatever happened on this program."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rush-Limbaugh-Inks-New-3-Year-Deal-Contract-%27Really-Never-in-Doubt-/2013/08/23/id/522035?s=al&promo_code=14A20-1#ixzz2ctcRgIOJ
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Banks robbed Americans during bailouts - don’t be fooled again

by Jason Kendall, contributing columnist | June 05, 2013

In between parties, vacations, repealing Obamacare for the 37th time and naming post offices, someone in Congress has an idea. Apparently, the bailouts of the American banking industry did not have the outcome Congress desired. Shocking that the strategy of blindly handing billions of dollars to bankers has yet to do much good for anyone except, of course, bankers.
The Terminating Bailouts for Taxpayer Fairness Act was introduced in the Senate in April, and if it survives from the onslaught of banking lobbyists, the bill may be able to do some good.
The act would require banks with more than $500 billion in assets to keep capital reserves of about 15 percent, about twice the current amount. Simple enough, but if you don't understand the impact of this on big banks, don't worry - just look at their response and you can see the threat this poses.
Before you question the motives of this bill, let's take a look at the 2008 bailout and what the banks have done with your money.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 gave billions to banks, whether they were financially healthy or not. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson threatened Congress that America would lose more than $5.5 trillion in wealth and the "world economy" would collapse if Wall Street did not get $700 billion. It was such a scary moment that the Senate added another $150 billion - you know, to cover the vig.
Well, what happened?
Let's start with the money loaned to help reduce mortgage deficiencies; this was one of the main justifications for the bailout. Most large banks took bailout money but failed to modify home loans. This is why they are constantly being sued.
Next, millions in bailout funds went directly to pay bonuses for bankers. Priceless.
Even more interesting is that your money is probably in the banks of the Federal Reserve. Up until 2008, the money banks had to give to the Fed gained no interest. The money was there to help stabilize banks. By not charging interest, banks would invest any access money, over what they had to put into the Fed, into the marketplace. Now that the Fed is paying interest, why would they invest that money elsewhere? Before the 2008 bailout, only about $2 billion was held in the reserve - now there is more than $1.6 trillion earning $5 billion in interest yearly.
The Fed printed money, Congress gave it to banks and the banks then returned it to the Fed in order to earn interest on that money.
Lastly, and to lock your children further into debt, in 2010, Congress and the president established the Small Business Lending Fund, loaning community banks $30 billion to invest. What did these banks do? They paid back their TARP loans from the 2008 bailout. The banks were given taxpayer money to loan but the money was instead used to pay back loans that the taxpayers had originally loaned them. They were bailed out of their bailout.
Former President George W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." The saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Americans were not fooled - they were

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue.  Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.
Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades.  It must be one or the other.
Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees.   If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.
President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:
“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.  They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers.  These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”
Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget.   What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions.  “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud.  The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years.  Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”
Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036.  So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?
The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted.  And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Rand Paul: Obama 'Flouting the Law' by Continuing Aid to Egypt

   President Barack Obama is "directly flouting the law" by not immediately cutting off financial aid to Egypt following the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says.

Paul pointed to the federal law that says the United States will not give money to countries operating under a coup — a designation the Obama administration has not given.

"There never should have been any debate. The law's explicit. If you have a military coup or a military takeover, the aid has to end unless you want a president who disobeys the law," Paul told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"This president is directly flouting the law and he's in direct disobeyance of the law. So, no, there's no question. The aid has to end.


Paul, who is considering a run for president in 2016, said following the law of the land is not up for debate.

"You can debate whether aid's a good idea and it's a bad idea, but the law you don't get to debate. You have to change the law if you don't like the law," he said.

"All of these Republicans who stand up and beat their chest and say, 'Oh, we're the party that's the rule of law and we criticize the Muslim Brotherhood for not obeying the rule of law.'

"Well, it's a valid criticism only if you obey the rule of law. … Our law says when an elected government is toppled, there's no wiggle room. You have to end the aid."

Rand likened the coup debate to a fight among youngsters.

"It's more like third-grade playground. … People say, 'Well, yeah, it's a coup, but you can't make me say it's a coup.' So it's a bunch of third-graders on the playground saying you can't make me," he said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rand-Paul-obama-aid/2013/08/22/id/521844?s=al&promo_code=149F7-1#ixzz2cp07XiNM
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Filner & Weiner

Is US Paying for UN to Teach Hate?

Controversial documentary explores Gaza camp teaching Palestinian children to hate Jews, glorify martyrs and support jihad — a message it is able to convey thanks in part to funding provided by a United Nations agency whose largest contributors are US taxpayers. Bailey Comment:When has the US Government ever ask the American Tax Payer if they want to give any money at all to the UN? The tax payer does not control the purse strings, the government does!

Perry Seeks Obamacare Cash, Despite Opposition to Law

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the country's most outspoken critics of Obamacare, is now in discussions with the administration about qualifying for $100 million in funds from the health care program to help the state's disabled and elderly.

According to Politico, Texas health officials are working to win approval from the administration to fit Obamacare's optional Community First Choice program into the state's existing Medicaid framework.

"Efforts are underway to develop and submit an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for participation," a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, told Politico.

The program is designed to provide more community-based support and in-home treatment to the disabled and elderly, and 12,000 Texans would stand to benefit.

The move surprised some in Texas, especially after the state refused to set up an insurance exchange or expand Medicaid as envisioned in the new health care law. Earlier this month, Perry also publicly criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for promoting Obamacare during a visit to Texas.

Now critics are accusing Perry of hypocrisy, something that could come back to haunt the retiring governor in the event he decides to make a second presidential bid in 2016.

Ginny Goldman, director of the Texas Organizing Project, told Politico that "it's simply a shame that Perry is willing to accept $100 million in Affordable Care Act dollars that would help some" in the state, while rejecting billions in Obamacare funds through a Medicaid expansion that could help 1.5 million Texans.




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/perry-obamacare-cash-opposition/2013/08/21/id/521561?s=al&promo_code=149A1-1#ixzz2cgo2Ec6f
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Hillary

Benghazi decision 'surely is a Clinton protection operation'

Charles Krauthammer told viewers Tuesday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that the State Department's reinstatement of four officials who had been put on leave after the Benghazi attacks illustrates the Department's refusal to hold anyone accountable.
 "This is the definition of how to conduct a stonewall," Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said of Secretary of State John Kerry's decision to put the officials back to work.
 "The new Secretary of State looks at this and says, essentially, these people were not responsible, or they don't really carry any accountability - they are back on the job, as you say, without ever missing a paycheck, and no one is held responsible."
Krauthammer added, "whatever the intent was, it surely is a Clinton protection operation, in effect."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/20/charles-krauthammer-kerry-benghazi-decision-surely-is-clinton-protection/#ixzz2castA7ep