Saw this today — a recent study shows that Obamacare premiums are as much as 78% higher than before the destructive law was forced on America.

Watch this 6-second video of The Liar and then read the news story.

According to a new study by HealthPocket that examined average health insurance premiums before the implementation of ObamaCare in 2013 and then afterward in 2014, insurance premiums have risen dramatically across the board since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

The 23-year-old demographic is taking the hardest hit in the wallet, as the Washington Times reports men in that age group are “seeing an average 78.2 percent price increase before factoring in government subsidies,” while women’s premiums have risen an average of 44.9 percent.

Thirty-year-olds are also seeing their premiums skyrocket — men on an average of 73.4 percent and women on an average of 35.1 percent.

Older insurance buyers have also seen their rates increase, though at a much less dramatic rate compared to their younger counterparts. Sixty-three-year-old men saw their rates increase by 37.5 percent, and women of the same age saw theirs increase by 22.7 percent. <The Week, link>

Obamacar Hindenburg

When Barack Obama won the 2012 election after such a disastrous first term of non-leadership, including rewarding Wall Street criminals while failing to restore the American economy, destroying American health care and ignoring the BP oil spill, I wondered whether he and his allies somehow stole the election from Mitt Romney, a political moderate and stand-up citizen of the USA with a sterling track record of leadership success.

I still wonder about it, and this week a flurry of articles has only made me more concerned about the lengths Democrats will go to defy the will of the people.

Here are three recent pieces of news that reveal how Democrats steal elections.

First, we have non-citizens being allowed to vote, and research showing that such people vote for Democrat candidates in overwhelming numbers.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. 

Non-citizens tended to favor Democrats [Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample], we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.

In Minnesota, the 2008 Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman was decided by 312 votes. <Daily Caller, link>

And to add insult to injury, we have a Justice Department that actively fights states that seek to outlaw voter fraud and require that voters show basic identification.

Next, we have electronic voting machines that switch your vote from Republican to Democrat.

There have been stories of voting machines switching votes in Illinois and Maryland, but they’ve been anecdotal and blamed on voter error or calibration issues.

Now comes video of it actually happening.

A man in Moline, Ill., used his phone to document how his vote for a Republican registered as a vote for the Democrat. The man wanted to vote for Neil Anderson for Illinois State Senate, but when he touched Anderson’s name (as seen clearly in the video), the vote registered for Mike Jacobs, the Democrat.

It wasn’t a one-time “error,” the same thing happened when he tried to vote for Republican Rep. Bobby Schilling. When he touched Schilling’s name, the vote registered for his Democratic challenger Cheri Bustos. <Daily Caller, link>

Here is the actual video of this chicanery:

Finally, we have Democrats in Colorado posing as Republican election judges:

The Colorado secretary of state is investigating allegations that some Boulder County Republican election judges are actually Democrats in disguise.

Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert began investigating and confirmed to the Daily Camera that she found “some troubling inconsistencies with some election judges.”

“One of them was a Democrat who had changed party affiliation on Oct. 10, so we are concerned that Boulder didn’t follow the list, then resorted to advertising for these positions,” she told the paper. <Daily Caller, link>

These three articles paint quite a picture, don’t they?

Democrats behind these fraudulent actions might imagine that the ends justify the means, but take one look at the effect of Democratic policy in action in this country, and everywhere in the world it is tried, and you can only conclude that the “ends” are exceptionally lousy and justify precisely nothing.

Recently I wrote about mr. Obama’s default reaction, in all its shame, for every crisis that happen on his watch: that he is “angry” about it, or “seething” as the New York Times dutifully reported last week, etc., etc.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently published the following piece, and I loved every word, so enjoy.

<Chicago Tribune, link>

The president is upset. Very upset. Frustrated and angry. Seething about the government’s handling of Ebola, said a front-page headline in The New York Times.

There’s only one problem with this pose, so obligingly transcribed for him by the Times. It’s his government. He’s president. Has been for six years. Yet Barack Obama reflexively insists on playing the shocked outsider when something goes wrong within his own administration.

IRS? “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” he thundered in May 2013 when the story broke of the agency targeting conservative groups. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS.”

Except that within nine months, Obama had grown far more tolerant, retroactively declaring this to be a phony scandal without “a smidgen of corruption.”

Obamacare rollout? “Nobody is more frustrated by that than I am,” said an aggrieved Obama about the botching of the central element of his signature legislative achievement. “Nobody is madder than me.”

Veterans Affairs scandal? Presidential chief of staff Denis McDonough explained: “Secretary Eric Shinseki said … that he’s mad as hell and the president is madder than hell.” A nice touch — taking anger to the next level.
lRelated Ebola vs. civil liberties

The president himself declared: “I will not stand for it.” But since the administration itself said the problem was long-standing, indeed predating Obama, this means he had stood for it for 51/2 years.

The one scandal where you could credit the president with genuine anger and obliviousness involves the recent breaches of White House Secret Service protection. The Washington Post described the first lady and president as “angry and upset,” and no doubt they were. But the first Secret Service scandal — the hookers of Cartagena in Colombia — evinced this from the president: “If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry.” An innovation in ostentatious distancing: future conditional indignation.

These shows of calculated outrage — and thus distance — are becoming not just unconvincing but unamusing. In our system, the president is both head of state and head of government. Obama seems to enjoy the monarchial parts, but when it comes to the actual business of running government, he shows little interest and even less aptitude.

His principal job, after all, is to administer the government and to get the right people to do it. (That’s why we typically send governors rather than senators to the White House.) That’s called management. Obama had never managed anything before running for the biggest management job on Earth. It shows.

What makes the problem even more acute is that Obama represents not just the party of government but a grandiose conception of government as the prime mover of social and economic life. The very theme of his presidency is that government can and should be trusted to do great things. And therefore society should be prepared to hand over large chunks of its operations — from health care (one-sixth of the economy) to carbon regulation down to free contraception — to the central administrative state.

But this presupposes a Leviathan not just benign but competent. When it then turns out that vast, faceless bureaucracies tend to be incapable, inadequate, hopelessly inefficient and often corrupt, Obama resorts to expressions of angry surprise.

He must. He’s not simply protecting his own political fortunes. He’s trying to protect faith in the entitlement state by portraying its repeated failures as shocking anomalies.

Unfortunately, the pretense has the opposite effect. It produces not reassurance but anxiety. Obama’s determined detachment conveys the feeling that nobody’s home. No one leading. Not even from behind.

A poll conducted two weeks ago found that 64 percent of likely voters (in competitive races) think that “things in the U.S. feel like they are out of control.” This is one degree of anxiety beyond thinking the country is on the wrong track. That’s been negative for years, and it’s a reflection of failed policies that in principle can be changed. Regaining control, on the other hand, is a far dicier proposition.

With events in the saddle and a sense of disorder growing — the summer border crisis, Ferguson, the rise of the Islamic State, Ebola — the nation expects from the White House not miracles but competence. At a minimum, mere presence. An observer presidency with its bewildered bystander pose only adds to the unease.

Barack Obama and his regime have allowed a virulent fast-killing disease for which there is no cure to take root inside the United States.

Ebola has been in Texas, Ohio, and now it is in New York City.

But note the Orwellian manipulation in the reporting of this horrible news:

NEW YORK (AP) — A doctor who became New York City’s first Ebola patient was praised for getting treatment immediately upon showing symptoms, and health officials stressed that the nation’s most populous city need not fear his wide-ranging travel in the days before his illness began. <Associated Press / Yahoo News, link>

Amazing isn’t it, how fast the writer of this news story shifts into propaganda by jumping into a positive message about the patient being “praised” and how health officials are saying that people “should not worry”.

But should we worry?

Read this next part:

Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged residents not to be alarmed by the doctor’s diagnosis Thursday, even as they described him riding the subway, taking a cab and bowling since returning to New York from Guinea a week ago. De Blasio said all city officials followed “clear and strong” protocols in their handling and treatment of him.

Well now, I feel so much safer that De Blasio is telling us not to worry, don’t you?

Ebola passing through the subway system, a taxi, and a bowling alley.

I don’t see any possibility of an outbreak, do you?

The real question on Ebola is whether we as citizens are going to swallow these false assurances or not.

In the most recent Ebola story I saw I came across this paragraph and could only shake my head:

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and its arrival in the United States, is the latest in a cascade of crises that have stretched Mr. Obama’s national security staff thin. As the White House scrambled to stop the spread of Ebola beyond a handful of cases, officials were also grappling with an escalating military campaign against the Islamic State, the specter of a new Cold War with Russia over Ukraine, and the virtual disintegration of Yemen, which has been a seedbed for Al Qaeda. <New York Times, link>

This is what failed leadership looks like, or perhaps what the Enemy Within looks like: a “cascade of crises“.

Either way, our nation has been pummeled by the Obama regime, and it is not even over yet.

How much worse?

I am not surprised that news reports this weekend report that Barack Obama is very “angry” about how the Ebola crisis has been handled.

Here is the weekend New York Times headline, on the top right of the very front page <link>:

Amid Assurances on Ebola, Obama Is Said to Seethe

No, this pathetic excuse for leadership is what we have come to expect with this president. He doesn’t get ahead of events, he lags far behind them and then “gets angry” about how his team has screwed it all up.

Beneath the calming reassurance that President Obama has repeatedly offered during the Ebola crisis, there is a deepening frustration, even anger, with how the government has handled key elements of the response.

He’s angry at the government?? Wait – isn’t he the president? Isn’t he a rather major part of the government? Of course he is. He sits atop the entire thing, and yet he cannot accept any responsibility for what happens on his watch. By now, six years into his regime, this ongoing disgrace is legendary and not fooling anyone.

And yet…

What does surprise me is that the New York Times faithfully promulgates this canned White House message. Why would the editors and owner do so at this point?

It’s easy to see why Valerie Jarrett and mr. Obama’s inner circle want to have him portrayed as “being angry” once a crisis has gone far beyond the point it should have. First, we have mr. Obama’s excessive rounds of golf and visage that says “I don’t care about any of this”. Even Obama supporters can’t stomach it when he so obviously is out to lunch on issues like Ebola, or half a dozen other train wrecks unfolding every day. Second, we have mr. Obama’s feckless leadership to cover up, and when you don’t have real leadership to talk about, you have to resort to plan B, which in this man’s case is “He’s angry” things are not going better, and it’s everybody’s fault except his.

So when the White House calls the Times and says “Here’s today’s narrative: Barack is angry about the Ebola response!!”, why do Times editors turn it into a front page story?

Why don’t they shrug their shoulders and say “So what? The president is angry? This is not news, sorry.”

But no, they print it most faithfully, including all of the blame the president heaps on this team.

Check this nugget from the “story”:

He told aides they needed to get ahead of events and demanded a more hands-on approach…

Sure, Barack, just like you are doing! Staying ahead of things and taking a hands on approach!

Lead by example, as they say, except it’s a fantasy because Barack Obama is the complete embodiment of the opposite of these things.

Why print this narrative and call it news?

No shame at the New York Times, apparently.

I met someone today who said he refused a business trip within the USA because of his fear of Ebola. I had not read this story and told him he was being overly cautious, and that unless he is planning to fly internationally, out of LAX or JFK, for example, that he should not fear traveling between two American cities.

Well guess what?

I was wrong.

Amber Joy Vinson, a 29-year-old nurse at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas, became ill after having contact with Thomas Eric Duncan, the Liberian man who died from the killer virus earlier this month.

It was disclosed Wednesday that Vinson, an Ohio native, has been traveling in recent days.

She was aboard Frontier Airlines Flight 1143 from Cleveland to Dallas/Fort Worth on Monday, officials said. The CDC is trying to track down all 132 people on that flight to make sure they’re OK. <New York Post, link>

This is what it has come to, folks: you are traveling between Cleveland and Dallas on a plane and you may just be taking your life in your hands sitting next to an Ebola patient.

Where is the federal government in all of this? Nowhere.

Who is protecting the homeland? No one, and certainly not Barack Hussein Ebola, I mean Obama, I mean Ebola.

Oh, and there is this:

Freiden also said that during her self-monitoring, Vinson recorded a temperature of 99.5 — just under the 100.4-degree threshold that would have required her to seek medical attention​, but which definitely should have kept her off an airliner​.


When you read something like this, don’t you wonder whether Americans at this point have a kind of death wish for the nation as a whole? A nurse who cared for an Ebola patient develops a fever, is allowed to travel, gets on a plane, interacts with her family, and then gets on a plane again and flies home…

It certainly seems to me that we are headed for an Ebola outbreak inside the homeland, and if you think, as Jon Stewart apparently does, that this is an unwarranted and melodramatic reaction to the events unfolding in Texas (and now Ohio…..) all I can say is: you are not welcome in my secret hideaway location and good luck to you.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers