McCain, Graham blast Obama for Al Qaeda-related takeover of Fallujah, call situation 'predictable'

Republican senators on Saturday blamed the Obama administration for Al Qaeda affiliates over-running parts of Iraq, including the city of Fallujah, which the United States secured before President Obama removed all U.S. forces from that country in 2011.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, called the recent turn of events “as tragic as they were predictable” and suggested Obama misled Americans into believing that Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. forces out of their country.
“While many Iraqis are responsible for this strategic disaster, the administration cannot escape its share of the blame,” the senators said in a joint statement. “When President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces … over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America's enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever.”
The Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters took over Fallujah on Friday after a bloody three-day battle, raising their flag over government buildings as a sign of victory, according to The Washington Post.
At least eight people were killed and dozens injured Friday night as the Iraqi army tries to regain control of the city. The army, which lobbed mortar bombs in its response, has been joined in the fray by tribesmen from Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold.
U.S. forces secured Fallujah in 2004 after one of the deadliest battles of the Iraq war. Fallujah became notorious among Americans when insurgents in 2004 killed four American security contractors and hung their burned bodies from a bridge.
After the recent takeover by Al Qaeda-tied fighters, the Obama administration on Saturday called the attacks barbaric and said it is working with the Iraqi government and the tribal leaders.
“We are … concerned by efforts of the terrorist Al Qaeda/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to assert its authority in Syria as well as Iraq,” said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf. “Their barbarism against civilians of Ramadi and Fallujah and against Iraqi Security Forces is on display for all to see.”
Major Sunni tribes turned against Al Qaeda before the American withdrawal at the end of 2011. But they do not support the Shiite-led government in Iraq, creating an odd alliance in the battle against militants.
“The administration's narrative that Iraq's political leadership objected to U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011 is patently false,” said McCain and Graham, military hawks with an active interest in Middle East affairs. “We know firsthand that Iraq's main political blocs were supportive and that the administration rejected sound military advice and squandered the opportunity to conclude a security agreement with Iraq."
On Friday, the Al Qaeda affiliates tried to win over the population in Fallujah with a militant commander appearing among worshippers holding Friday prayers in the main city street, proclaiming that his fighters were there to defend Sunnis from the government, a resident said.
There have been no reports on the total number of people injured or killed in the fighting that started earlier this week.
The overrunning of Fallujah and Ramadi, another Sunni stronghold, by Al Qaeda’s Iraqi branch in the Sunni heartland of western Anbar provinces is a blow to the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister al-Maliki. His government has been struggling to contain discontent among the Sunni minority over Shiite political domination that has flared into increased violence for the past year.
Anbar province, a desert area on the borders with Syria and Jordan, has almost an entirely Sunni population. The area served as the heartland of the Sunni insurgency that rose up against American troops and the Iraqi government after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Authorities earlier this week arrested a senior Sunni politician and dismantled a months-old sit-in in Ramadi sparking anger among Sunnis.
In an effort to ease tensions, al-Maliki pulled the military out of Anbar cities to transfer security duties to local police, a top demand of Sunnis who see the army as a tool of al-Maliki’s rule. Al Qaeda militants then erupted in Fallujah and Ramadi overrunning police station, driving out security forces and freeing prisoners.
“Thousands of brave Americans who fought, shed their blood, and lost their friends to bring peace to Fallujah and Iraq are now left to wonder whether these sacrifices were in vain,” said McCain and Graham, who argued the administration’s failure in Iraq has been compounded by its failed policy in Syria.
That country is involved in a years-long civil war in which tens of thousands have been killed or driven from their homeland, which the senators say has resulted in a regional conflict that now threatens U.S. national security interests.
The senators also called on Obama to learn from the Iraq experience and promptly decide on the troop levels needed to secure U.S. national security interests in Afghanistan and to keep out Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies.

Michael Moore

Administration to high court: Don't exempt Catholic groups from contraception mandate

Bailey comment: " This is our federal government out of control ".


The Obama administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court not to exempt Catholic groups from an ObamaCare requirement to offer contraceptive coverage, after the high court gave them a temporary reprieve earlier this week. 
The court filing comes in response to a surprise order -- issued shortly before coverage under the law went into effect -- by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The justice issued a stay late Tuesday preventing the government from enforcing the so-called contraceptive mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged.
The group of Catholic nuns argues that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates their religious beliefs. To get around the mandate, they claim they'd have to sign a "permission slip" authorizing others to provide contraceptives and "abortion drugs" -- or pay a fine.
Lawyers for the group made one more plea for emergency relief late Friday, filing a 17-page brief with the court saying the reprieve spared the nuns from having to choose between violating their faith and facing IRS penalties. The brief claimed the government is "simply blind to the religious exercise at issue: the Little Sisters and other Applicants cannot execute the form because they cannot deputize a third party to sin on their behalf." 
But the Justice Department, responding just before the Friday morning deadline, reiterated its argument that the group has no foundation for its case. The administration says religious nonprofit groups such of this one can certify that they don't want to provide contraceptive coverage. In that case, it would be up to a third-party administrator to decide whether to provide it.
The DOJ filing noted that the administrator in this case "says it will not provide contraceptive coverage."
"Applicants have no legal basis to challenge the self certification requirement or to complain that it involves them in the process of providing contraceptive coverage," the administration claimed.
The Catholic group, though, has argued that even signing the certification form would violate the nuns' beliefs.
A lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the group, blasted the administration over the filing.
"The government demands that the Little Sisters of the Poor sign a permission slip for abortion drugs and contraceptives, or pay of millions in fines. The Sisters believe that doing that violates their faith, and that they shouldn't be forced to divert funds from the poor elderly and dying people they've devoted their lives to serve," senior counsel Mark Rienzi said in a statement.
Government lawyers say the nuns' insurance is a "church plan" that is not required to provide contraception coverage and has decided not to, so they have no legal basis to complain.
It is not known when Sotomayor will make a decision.

Illegal Immigrant Allowed to Practice Law in California

  Bailey comment: "Unbelievable ".

 The California Supreme Court granted on Thursday a law license to an illegal Mexican immigrant who graduated from law school and passed the bar, a precedent setting decision and a key victory for immigration rights advocates, the New York Times and other news outlets reported.

The undocumented immigrant, California resident Sergio Garcia, 36, had challenged a 1996 federal law that bars illegal immigrants from obtaining professional licenses from government agencies or with the use of public funds, unless the state ruled otherwise.

In October, California was the first state in the nation to pass legislation that allows children who were brought to the U.S. by their undocumented parents to become lawyers.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

The California Bar Assn. and California's Attorney General agreed that the status of citizenship should not be a requirement to receive a California law license.

But it was the State Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as lawyers, which granted Garcia's application.

In its ruling the court wrote, "In light of the recently enacted state legislation, we conclude that the committee's motion to admit Garcia to the State Bar should be granted."

The federal government's opposition to granting Garcia a law license seemed to fly in the face of President Obama's program that allows illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and work here as long as they were brought to the U.S. as children, graduated high school, don't have a criminal record and are under 31. Garcia was too old.

In this case, the government had argued against Garcia practicing law because the court, which oversees the licensing of lawyers, is funded by public money.

Garcia was brought to the U.S. by his father to work in the almond fields. He later attended Cal Northern School of Law and passed the bar in 2009. He applied for citizenship 10 years ago.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/california-immigration-jerry-brown-law/2014/01/02/id/544908#ixzz2pO6MPBXN
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Michael Moore: 'ObamaCare is awful'

Bailey comment: " WOW "!

Michael Moore is not happy with ObamaCare.
The liberal documentary filmmaker marked the Jan. 1 launch of coverage under the Affordable Care Act with a scathing op-ed that declared: "ObamaCare is awful."
This, he wrote in The New York Times, is the "dirty little secret many liberals have avoided saying out loud for fear of aiding the president's enemies."
Moore's problems with the law, though, naturally are different than the complaints from Republican critics.
Moore continues to back a single-payer, government-run system and argues that the current one is too favorable to the insurance industry.
"I believe Obamacare's rocky start -- clueless planning, a lousy website, insurance companies raising rates, and the president's telling people they could keep their coverage when, in fact, not all could -- is a result of one fatal flaw: The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go," he wrote.
Yet in the same op-ed, Moore also called ObamaCare a "godsend," because of its protections preventing insurance companies from denying or dropping sick patients.
He urged the public to pressure "blue states" to add a so-called "public option" -- a plan run by the government -- and "red states" to expand Medicaid.

ObamaCare brings new taxes, fees for 2014

Bailey Comment: " Did all of you Idiots that voted for Obamacare really think you were going to get it for FREE"??


Get ready for the next wave of ObamaCare fees. 
With the launch of coverage under the health care law on Wednesday, a new set of taxes and fees is kicking in this year -- as part of the hundreds of billions of dollars the government intends to raise over the next decade to help pay for the program. 
This year, the increases come in the form of fees on health insurance companies which could translate into higher premiums. And for those who don't buy coverage, the IRS plans to slap them with a fine -- some call it a "tax" -- for not complying.
"This is only the beginning," the conservative Heritage Foundation warned Thursday.
The biggest revenue-raiser kicking in this year is an annual fee on health insurers, meant to help fund premium subsidies and other provisions.
The fee is projected to bring in $8 billion this year and roughly $100 billion over the next decade. The insurance industry -- and more than 200 House lawmakers -- are trying to repeal it, warning that these costs will be passed onto the consumer (though some will get Affordable Care Act subsidies).
An industry-commissioned study by consultant Oliver Wyman estimated that rates will rise in 2014 by up to 2.3 percent for that reason alone. By 2023, the study said, rates could be rising annually by up to 3.7 percent because of the tax.
The other major fee to watch out for is the individual mandate penalty. Under the law, those who do not get insurance by the end of March and do not qualify for an exemption will be charged the fee. This year, that penalty will be $95, or 1 percent of household income, whichever is greater.
The penalty will increase considerably in 2015 and beyond, though it remains unclear whether it is big enough to compel reluctant individuals to enter the insurance market.
Finally, insurance companies are dealing with another set of increases. They are:
-- A so-called "reinsurance fee" will be applied to some health insurers this year. The temporary fee is meant to raise $25 billion over three years, to help pay for the cost of those with pre-existing conditions signing up for coverage through the ObamaCare exchanges.  The fee would start at $63 per person, but then drop to a bit more than $40 per person in 2015. It would drop again the following year. Critics warn that this could result in higher premiums, much like the annual tax on health insurers.
-- Individual and group health insurers will be required to pay a small fee to fund a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The fee is set at $2 per covered person this year, and will be adjusted annually based on "medical inflation."
-- Some insurers will also be hit with a fee to fund what is known as a "risk adjustment program." This is meant to spread the risk around, by charging policies with lower-risk customers and using that money to offset costs for policies with higher-risk customers.
-- The Department of Health and Human Services has proposed charging a monthly user fee equal to 3.5 percent of the premium for policies in the federal exchange. This money is meant to help fund the insurance exchanges.
Republicans argue that all these fees and more will contribute to rising premiums. House Speaker John Boehner recently called the law "unworkable and unaffordable."
But supporters, and the Obama administration, argue that the protections and benefits Americans are getting in return more than make up for the costs.
When coverage launched on Wednesday, the White House declared it a "new day for the millions of Americans who finally have the security that comes from quality, affordable health coverage."
Among the changes, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions; insurance companies cannot impose annual caps on health benefits; and millions may qualify for subsidies to help them buy insurance. Millions more will qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage.

Enrollment is up, but ObamaCare still faces uncertainty, politically and otherwise

ObamaCare appears at least for now to be off life support -- after a total 2.1 million Americans enrolled to get insurance coverage this year. But whether President Obama’s signature health care law survives -- at least in its entirety -- remains uncertain.
Despite House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other ardent supporters of ObamaCare declaring that it remains “the law of the land,” other congressional Democrats facing re-election this year have hinted at cannibalized the legislation in the face of a confused and frustrated electorate.
In early November, 39 House Democrats, including many in battleground districts, voted to allow millions of Americans to keep the health care plans they lost under ObamaCare, joining Republicans who have rigorously opposed the 2010 law since then-presidential candidate Obama proposed it in 2007.
Weeks after the recent House vote, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., among the most vulnerable Senate Democrats and who had roughly 90,000 people in her home state get their insurance revoked, also broke with her party by introducing a similar bill.
Yet the broader issue looming beyond the politics is whether the entire, federally-subsidized program can become self-sustainable by getting enough enrollees, preferably younger Americans, or fall into what critics are calling the “death spiral.”
Their argument is that the administration will need millions of younger, healthy Americans to sign up to cover the costs of older enrollees who typically need more medical care. And without the young and healthy, insurance companies will increase prices to cover their losses, which will result in even few enrollees and some sort of government intervention, the critics further argue.
“If they do [succeed,] it'll be pure, irrational dumb luck,” said Dan Holler of Heritage Action for America, which has helped lead efforts to “defund” ObamaCare. “The program they designed, and the incentives they put in place, look destined to fail.”
Holler argued Tuesday that ObamaCare problems are systemic, with doctors eventually no longer accepting low reimbursements and Americans “refusing to spend exorbitant amounts of money on plans that won't allow them to keep their doctor.”
However, the results of Kaiser Family Foundation study released last week suggest only a slight increase in insurance premiums in 2015, despite low enrollment so far by young people. (Rates are already locked in for 2014.)
"It is nowhere near what is sometimes referred to as a death spiral," Larry Levitt, a health economist at the foundation, said following the report's release, according to Reuters.
Preliminary figures suggest roughly 25 percent of Americans who have so far signing up for ObamaCare are in the crucial 18-to-34 age group, below the administration's goal of roughly 40 percent.
The administration has said it needs to enroll roughly 7 million Americans by March 31, on its way to expanding coverage to 25 million by 2016.
However, Levitt said, “It doesn’t matter how many people sign up. What matters more is the proportions.”
And on Monday, Howard Dean -- a former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman – suggested the so-called "individual mandate" in ObamaCare that requires Americans to purchase insurance or face a tax penalty might not have been needed for the program to be successful.
He told CNBC that actuarial data does not lead to the conclusion that huge cost overruns will result without the mandate.
"Insurance companies like it because it does bring young, healthy people who aren't likely to get sick into the system," he said. "But our experience [in Vermont,] although it's with young people under 18, not with everybody, is that the individual mandate was not that necessary."