Obama’s Medical Insurance Simply Explained!

 Dear Reader:

The democrats claimed the purpose of The (un)Affordable Health Care Act often called ObamaScare, was to make sure every citizen had health insurance. In 2010 they claimed we had 30,000,000 uninsured people in the USA. Five years later The USA has 30,000,000 uninsured people. Co-pays are astronomically higher! Instead of premiums going down $2500 a year as President Obama promised they have gone up, and up and uuUP!  Suddenly, the people that used to come through our medical facilities have been replaced by an entirely different group. 

“This is EXACTLY what we are seeing with the throngs of frappers parading through Humana, for lo these endless months” stated a Humana employee.

The following synopsis of ObamaScare was written by an engineer.  A good engineer, wrote this. If a Lawyer had written it, we would be reading pg, 2000 by next week! You would have labored through at least 1000 “whereases” ” to-wits”, and as many  “party of the first parts”.

 Here is how you get to the core of this stupid piece of legislation in 4 simple sentences:

BRILLIANT

10,535 pages reduced to 4 sentences.

READ SLOWLY!

 4 simple sentences

Great summary by a Notre Dame University engineer………

As humorous as it sounds…..every last word is absolutely TRUE!

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.
2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
3. To  re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured,
and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, so it will be ‘free-of-charge’ to them.

 Back to the more verbose me:This, ladies and gentlemen, is called “redistribution of wealth” or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM, or “PROGRESSIVE”, the politically correct names for COMMUNISM !

Wow! What a brilliant way to raise money by the productive to fund a free service for the unproductive. Aren’t we lucky to have such a brilliant man as Barry Obama leading us!

Of course, there are government subsidies to help with the extra expenses.  You do realize that a government subsidy is when the government takes money away from the citizen, so the government can take a cut, giving what’s left over to the sick (that deserve help), those in temporary need (that deserve help) and the unproductive that don’t deserve anything!

DON’T FORGET, THERE IS NOT ONE REPUBLICAN FINGERPRINT ON THIS STUPIDITY! THE DEMOCRATS MIGHT WISH THE COULD BLAME THE OTHER PARTY, BUT THEY CANNOT! This proves my theory that the reason historians claim dems are better is because of the following sequence: Democrats make terrible messes of the economy.  The productive people realize it, switch to Republicans that then fix the mess.  Some of the fixes anger enough of the people that it swings the later election back to the Democrats. The dems ride a wave of good economics created by the repubs as they bring back their erroneous policies, messing things up again.  Slavery is a good example:

  It is only the past few decades that the American South has been trending Republican. Prior to that the South was solidly Democrat. From the founding throughout the civil rights fight the dems had a tight control in that part of the USA!  In fact, if it wasn’t for the Northern Republicans, LBJ would never have passed the Civil Rights legislation.  With that in mind, the slave states were controlled by Democrats.

 The Republican President Lincoln and his party in congress freed the slaves.  You could say they fixed the problem.  Then, with various swings in party control in Washington, the South stayed solidly democrat! The dems in the south created a “defacto slave state”, relegating black people to second class status.  It wasn’t until the Republican General Dwight Eisenhower integrated the military and later President Eisenhower integrated the public schools that the errors of the dems were once again corrected.  The same pattern happens over and over again! Especially economically!  How long will it take a Ben Carson, Ted Cruz or Don Trump to fix the many complex economic problems created by the democrats since they took over the countries purse in January 2007. That includes this health care mess!

We invite you to comment on this!

 Advertisement:

Get your free gold savings account! Find out how to earn free gold!  Go to http://abundantgoldmine.com

The newest Obamacare fail: Penalties of $36,500 per worker! THE IRS MONEY GRAB!

” Internal Revenue Service penalty is not written into the Obamacare law.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Opinion: The newest Obamacare fail: penalties of $36,500 per worker

Published: July 23, 2015 12:50 p.m. ET

The Internal Revenue Service swoops in with a money grab

By
Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Columnist

Hey, employers, don’t even think about reimbursing your workers’ health-insurance premiums.

Beginning this month, the IRS can levy fines amounting to $100 per worker per day or $36,500 per worker per year, with a maximum of $500,000 per firm.

This Internal Revenue Service penalty is not written into the Obamacare law. The amount is over 12 times the statutory amount in the Affordable Care Act of $3,000 per worker per year. That is what an employer is charged when one of its employees gets subsidized care on one of the health-care exchanges. It’s 18 times the $2,000 penalty for not offering adequate health insurance.

The $100 fine is applicable not only to large firms, but also those with fewer than 50 workers that are exempt from the $2,000 and $3,000 employer penalties. Firms with one worker are exempt. The penalty for S-corporations will take effect on Jan. 1, 2016. The new rule is broad, sweeping and overly punitive.

This new IRS penalty does not assist in the ACA’s stated goal of expanding health insurance in the United States. Rather, it does the opposite. It discourages people from finding and purchasing the insurance that suits them. It also discourages companies from hiring. Consider that 14% of businesses that do not offer group health insurance have some sort of arrangement to reimburse their employees for insurance costs, according to the National Federation of Independent Business.

Small employers with a workforce of between 50 and 100 employees are required to offer the more expensive ‘essential health benefits.’

The administration should be encouraging employers to take on more labor, because many capable people are sitting on the sidelines. On the day after the IRS rule took effect, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its Employment Situation Report for June 2015. The report showed that U.S. labor-force participation had declined to a new low, 62.6%, equivalent to levels in October 1977. The drop included prime-age workers, those between 25 and 55, who are normally in the labor market because they generally have finished school and have not yet retired.

Rep. Charles Boustany, a Republican from Louisiana, has introduced the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act of 2015, and Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has a companion bill in the Senate (S.1697). The bills would allow small businesses to use pre-tax dollars to assist employees purchasing insurance in the individual market.

Why has the IRS taken this extreme view? If the employer reimburses an employee for health-insurance premiums, this arrangement is described as an employer-payment plan. The employer-payment plan is considered by the IRS to be a group health plan that has to meet the conditions of Affordable Care Act insurance, including the prohibition on annual limits for essential health benefits and the requirement to provide certain preventive care without cost sharing.

MarketWatch columnist Bill Bischoff explains the new rule as follows. “Employer-payment arrangements have long been a popular way for small employers to help workers obtain health coverage without the hassle and expense of furnishing a full-fledged company health-insurance plan. Under an employer-payment arrangement, the employer reimburses participating employees for premiums paid for their individual health-insurance policies or pays the premiums directly on behalf of participating employees.”

Small employers with a workforce of between 50 and 100 employees are required to offer the more expensive “essential health benefits,” including hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental-health and substance-use disorder services, and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

In contrast, large employers, those with more than 100 workers, do not have to meet all the generous standards for health-insurance plans offered on the state exchanges, but can offer lesser health insurance and still avoid penalties. The “minimum essential coverage” that large employers have to offer to comply with the law turns out to be substantially less generous than the “essential health benefits” required for plans sold to individuals and small businesses by insurance companies.

Of course, not all employers will choose low-benefit plans. In order to retain workers, many large employers are likely to offer generous plans, and offset the cost by paying a lower cash wage. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that benefits account for 32% of compensation packages, with cash wages responsible for the remainder. However, low-benefit plans are likely to be attractive to employers with low-skill workforces in the restaurant, retail, and leisure and hospitality industries.

Although large employers can legally offer low-benefit plants, small employers are not allowed to do so. This leads to an extraordinary discrepancy in potential tax payments between small and large employers. Hence, they face both higher costs for insurance and higher tax penalties if they fail to offer such insurance.

The Boustany-Grassley bill is focused on small businesses, but it makes sense to allow individuals in large companies to choose less expensive options. Health-insurance premiums are rising substantially. Oregon’s health-insurance commissioner has just approved raises of 25% to 33% for Moda Health Plan and Lifewise, affecting over 220,000 people. Other health-insurance companies nationwide are asking for increases in the same range, and insurance commissioners are deciding whether to approve them.

Even the least expensive plans on the health exchanges, termed bronze plans, feature deductibles that are prohibitive for many. The average deductible on a bronze plan is $5,000 for a single person and $11,000 for a family, according to HealthPocket, a research firm.

Businesses need to take a stand against this new IRS power grab. As Americans search for low-cost ways to stay insured, it makes sense for the government to give employers more options, rather than fewer.
More from MarketWatch

2015 is 1984!
Big Brother Barry is watching us!

Diana
Furchtgott-Roth

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, is the coauthor of “Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young.” Follow her on Twitter here.

Democrats Want Fraud to Run Amok in Obamacare!

A lesson in Media Fraud:  Note the difference between my headline above, and the one used by AP below.  Both are biased.  If you just look at the one saying dems want fraud, you think they are all a bunch of crooks.  If you just saw the one below, you would think “Oh, those repubs are trying to hurt Obama again!” 

If you call AP out on this they will say, “Look at the sub-headline.” “Probe Finds Phony Applicants Got Health Benefits!” They would point to that saying, “See we let our readers know there is more to the story than what the headline infers.” However, they know the majority never read past the main headline.

Anyway, here is the article.  Make sure you read between the biased lines of these liberal, Obama propagandists.

Democrats decry undercover probe of HealthCare.gov

Associated Press Videos

Probe Finds Phony Applicants Got Health Benefits!

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior Democrats pushed back Thursday against an undercover government probe of President Barack Obama’s health care law, saying it didn’t uncover any real fraud.

Investigators for the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office signed up 11 bogus beneficiaries for 2014 coverage then got HealthCare.gov to continue benefits this year for all but one.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said these were “fictitious cases” and the GAO investigators themselves admit the findings can’t be translated to the 10 million people getting subsidized coverage through the law’s health insurance markets. Wyden spoke at a Finance Committee hearing on the investigation.

But GAO’s audits chief Seto Bagdoyan said the investigation exposed real concerns. He said it was relatively easy for GAO’s fictitious characters to get and keep coverage, even to get reinstated after HealthCare.gov terminated them. HealthCare.gov seems to put a higher priority on getting people covered than on verifying they are legally entitled to benefits, Bagdoyan said.

Democrats have no tolerance for fraud, but “the report up for discussion today is not about any real-world fraud,” Wyden said. “Not one of them was a real person who filed taxes or got medical services. No fast-buck fraudster got a government check sent to their bank account.”

Bagdoyan said GAO is continuing its work on the strength of HealthCare.gov’s antifraud controls, but his preliminary conclusion is that the administration’s main focus is to get as many people signed up as possible. “As of now, the balance would probably favor access over program integrity,” he said.

For example, the investigation found that HealthCare.gov’s document-processing contractor is not charged with deterring fraud beyond looking for papers that appear to have been altered. “They are not tasked to look for fraud,” Bagdoyan said, adding: “We do have concerns about the flags we’ve detected.”

The law’s subsidies for premiums get paid directly to insurers, not individual policyholders. But health insurance is a valuable product in and of itself, with the cost of employer-sponsored family coverage averaging close to $17,000 a year.

Opponents of Obama’s health care law don’t need much prodding to recite its flaws, real or imagined. But GAO’s findings aren’t pure make-believe, said Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind.

“Sure it’s fictitious,” Coats said. “But if this isn’t an alarm bell … I don’t know what is.”

GAO is the investigative agency of Congress.

The facts prove that it is easy to defraud Obama’s unaffordable health care.

KEEP MORE OF YOUR MONEY! STOP LETTING THE POLITICIANS ROB YOU THROUGH INFLATION! FIND OUT HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF TODAY!  Earn Free Gold!

View Comments (1070)

So Many Problems, So Little Time Left!

A comment from an earlier blog!  I don’t know how much of this statement is accurate, but I know the subject of destroying the formerly wonderful American Health Care system is accurate.  Read the letter below.

“All I can say is that the people behind Obama have to be some of the richest and most powerful people in the world in order to pull off the greatest con and hoax in world history …a foreign born person illegally elected to the presidency of the United States. … legally and illegally in putting all of the pieces into play to declare a state of emergency, institute martial law and seize dictatorial control of the United States before his current term ends. Everything about him points to this conclusion.”

 Good Morning!

Some of you seem skeptical when I mentioned Obama’s (UN)affordable care act did not cover us on Medicare unless it was treating an illness.  I promised to research a letter received some time ago that showed another person with the same problem I ran into at Mayo Clinic, once my wife’s condition had been completely free and clear for 5 years.  Here is that letter:

On Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:06 PM, Frank Giroux <rockeagle@earthlink.net> wrote:
 Where they belong!
 Apologies in advance for the language.  I do not know how to remove text from work done by someone else.  However, the message was made clear in the last election.
I have another dream!I HAVE A DREAM!
Letter from a senior gentleman in Mesa, Arizona:
Dear Family, Friends, Neighbors and former Classmates,
I just found myself in the middle of a medical situation that made it very clear that “the affordable care act” is neither affordable, nor do they care.
I’ll go back about seven years ago to a fairly radical prostate surgery that I underwent. The Urologist (a personal friend) who performed the surgery was very concerned that it was cancer, though I wasn’t told this until the lab report revealed it was benign.  Since that procedure, I have experienced numerous urinary tract infections, UTI’s. Since I had never had a “UTI” prior to the prostate surgery, I assume that it is one of the side effects from surgery, an assumption since confirmed by my Family Doctor.
The weekend of March 8-9, I was experiencing all the symptoms of another bout of UTI. By Monday afternoon the infection had hit with full force. Knowing that all I needed was an antibiotic, I went to an Urgent Care Center in Mesa, AZ., to provide a specimen, a requirement for getting the prescription. After waiting 45 min. to see the Doctor, I started getting very nauseous and light headed.
I went to the Receptionist to ask where the bathroom was as I felt that I was going to throw up. I was told that I would have to wait for the Doctor because I would need to leave a specimen and they didn’t want me in the bathroom without first seeing him.
That was when the lights went out, my next awareness was that of finding myself on the floor (in the waiting room) having violent dry heaves, and very confused. At this point, I tried to stand up but couldn’t make it, and they made it very clear they weren’t going to let me get up until the ambulance got there. By the way, when you’re waiting to see the Doctor and you pass out, you get very prompt attention.
Now, “the rest of the story”, and the reason for sending this to so many of you.
 
I was taken to the nearest hospital, to emergency. Once there, I was transported to an emergency examination room. Once I had removed my clothes and donned one of those lovely hospital gowns, I finally got to see a Doctor. I asked “what is going on” I’m just having a UTI, just get me the proper medication and let me go home. He told me that my symptoms presented the possibility of sepsis, a potentially deadly migration of toxins, and that they needed to run several tests to determine how far the infection had migrated.
For the next 3 hours I was subjected to several tests, blood draws, EKG’s, and demands for specimens. At about 7:30 the nurse came back to my room to inform me that one of the tests takes 1- 2 days to complete, I asked if they (the results)could be emailed, at which point she informed me that I wouldn’t need them emailed because I wasn’t going anywhere. I started arguing with her but was told, “if you don’t start behaving, I’ll start taking your temperature rectally, at which point I became a perfect gentleman. I did tell her I wanted to see the doctor because I had no intention of staying overnight.
Now, this is what I want each of you to understand, please read these next sentences carefully. The doctor finally came in to inform me that he was going to admit me. I said, “are you admitting me for treatment or for observation?” He told me that I would be admitted for observation. I said Doctor, correct me if I’m wrong, but if you admit me for observation my Medicare will not pay anything, this due to the affordable care act , he said that’s right, it won’t. I then grabbed for my bag of clothing and said, then I’m going home. He said you’re really too sick to be going home, but I understand your position, this health program is going to hit seniors especially hard.
The doctor then left the room and I started getting dressed, I was just getting ready to put my shoes on when another doctor (the closer) came into the room, he saw me dressed and said, “where do you think you are going?” I simply said “I’m going home, to which he replied, quite vociferously, no you aren’t. I said, “Doc, you and I both know that under the “affordable care act” anyone on Medicare who is admitted to a hospital for observation will be responsible for the bill, Medicare won’t pay a cent”.  At which point he nodded in affirmation. I said, “You will either admit me for a specific treatment or you won’t admit me.” Realizing he wasn’t going to win this one, he said he would prepare my release papers.
A few minutes later the discharge nurse came to my room to have me sign the necessary papers, relieving them from any responsibility. I told her I wasn’t trying to be obstinate, but I wasn’t going to be burdened with the full (financial) responsibility for my hospital stay.
After making sure the door was closed, she said, “I don’t blame you at all, I would do the same thing.”  She went on to say, “You wouldn’t believe the people who elect to leave for the same reasons, people who are deathly sick, people who have to be wheeled out on a gurney.” She further said, “The ‘Affordable Care Act’ is going to be a disaster for seniors. Yet, if you are in this country illegally, and have no coverage, you will be covered in full.
This is not internet hype folks, this is real, I just experienced it personally.  Moving right along, this gets worse.
Today I went to a (required) follow up appointment with my Arizona Family Practitioner. Since my white count was pretty high, the follow up was important. During the visit I shared the experience at emergency, and that I had refused to be admitted. His response was “I don’t blame you at all, I would have done the same thing”.  He went on to say that the colonoscopy and other procedures are probably going to be dropped from coverage for those over 70.

 
I told him that I had heard that the affordable care act would no longer pay for cancer treatment for those 76 and older, is that true? His understanding is that it is true.
The more I hear, and experience the Affordable Care Act, the more I’m beginning to see that we seniors are nothing more than an inconvenience, and the sooner they can get rid of us the better off they’ll be.
November is coming folks, we can have an impact on this debacle by letting everyone in Congress know that their responsibility is to the constituents, not the president and not the lobbyists. We need to let them ALL know that they are in office to serve and to look after the BEST INTERESTS of “we the people”, their employers, and not to become self serving bureaucrats who serve only out of greed. And if they don’t seem to understand this simple logic, we’ll fire them.
On the mend, (signed)
REMEMBER:  Demand your hospital admission is for TREATMENT and NOT for OBSERVATION!
PS
You have seen nothing yet!  Just wait until many of the company supplied health care
is cancelled, and the “Death Panels” get their power in January 2015! If you are over 70 and get ill, bend over and kiss your butt goodbye!

PPS
Mayo now has us fill out a form at every visit, and we are back to paying only the Medicare 20%–however, nothing can remove the big bill we ignorantly got stuck with! We are hoping ChampVA will suck up that 20%, but it still is an open question!?

Did Soros and Obama, Steal $Millions from each Member of your Family!

Before reading the article below, keep in mind Barry and Michelle Obama spent over

$600,000,000 for a computer system that does not work!!  Presumably, this

computer system was going to keep you healthy!  Please realize that money could

have paid for the insurance of every American! Yes sir!  A crummy computer

for $600,000,000, not to count the $trillions of other dollars wasted on a stupid,

expensive health care system that most Americans don’t want!!!

Doesn’t it make you wonder where all that money went???  We would all like to

know!  We know, two students put together a similar, but functional Health Care

Computer System at little or no cost to anyone.  Many computer experts also claim

they are able to put together the functionally working system for around $1,000,000

with an additional $10 to 50 million with all of the necessary add-ons!  At worst,

the most ObamaScare’s computer system should have cost is $51,000,000.  If

they really had to spend the rest of the $600,000,000 they could have sent $6,000 to

every family of four (4) of legal citizens in the United States!!

By the way, did you know one of the main people of the Canadian company that

got the contract to set up a non-functioning system is a college friend of Michelle

Obama!

Like you, I have no idea how they could have spent so much money on a

program that should have only cost 8% of the $600,000,000 Obama spent!  Yet, if

we had a legitimate press someone would have dug up how that suspicious

company doled out it’s largess of $600,000,0000!  Did some go to George Soros to

continue funding his leftist groups and causes? Did a chunk of it end up in the

Obama Secret Bank accounts in the Caribbean and Switzerland??  Of course, to head

off a congressional investigation, quite possibly speaker of the House Bohner and

some other Key republicans and democrats must have been paid off as well???

Who really knows, except for God, the Obama’s, Valery Jarret, the incompetent

computer company and a few other trusted Key Players! (And they ain’t saying).

Me thinks that if the public really knew the truth some very big people in

Washington, District of Corruption would be off to jail!

My wish and prayer is that the politicians in Washington would start thinking like the YouTube video below,

and get off of their greediness, corruption and egoism!

http://youtu.be/Bb7Th-RKwZ8

THE SHARED AGENDAS OF GEORGE SOROS AND BARACK OBAMA
The Shared Agendas of George Soros and Barack Obama
By Discover The Networks

February 2011
While George Soros was busy bankrolling his battalion of established activist groups and launching a few new ones of his own, he quite naturally looked toward the upcoming presidential election of 2008 with great anticipation, eagerly awaiting the day when George W. Bush would finally leave office. The question was, who would replace him? In recent years, all indications had been that Soros favored Hillary Clinton above most, if not all, other potential Democratic candidates for President. But now there was a new face on the scene¯a young, charismatic U.S. senator from Illinois named Barack Obama¯who seemed not only to share virtually all of Soros’s values and agendas, but also appeared to be a highly skilled politician who stood a good chance of getting elected to the nation’s highest office.In December of 2006, Soros, who had previously hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 Senate campaign, met with Obama in Soros’s New York office. Just a few weeks later¯on January 16, 2007¯Obama announced that he would form a presidential exploratory committee and was contemplating a run for the White House. Within hours, Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign-finance laws. Later that week, the New York Daily News reported that Soros would support Obama rather than Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, though Soros pledged to back the New York senator were she to emerge as the nominee.1 But it was clear that Soros considered Obama to be the more electable candidate of the two. Most importantly, Obama’s economic and political prescriptions for America were wholly accordant with those of Soros.Anti-CapitalismObama’s anti-capitalist background and views are well documented: His father was a communist; his mother was a communist sympathizer;2 in his youth he was mentored by the communist Frank Marshall Davis; he sought out Marxist friends and professors at Occidental College; he attended Socialist Scholars Conferences in New York; he was trained in the community-organizing methods of Saul Alinsky, a communist fellow traveler; he developed close ties to the pro-socialist community organization ACORN; he developed close personal and political ties to the infamous Marxists (and former domestic terrorists) Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; he was hand-picked for his first political office by Alice Palmer, a pro-Soviet figure in Illinois; in the 1990s he became a member of the New Party, a socialist political coalition; he had close connections to the Midwest Academy, a radical training ground which author Stanley Kurtz has described as a “crypto-socialist organization”;3 and he spent twenty years attending the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who preaches the Marxist doctrines of liberation theology. As President, Obama appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International as his “environment czar”;4 he employed a White House communications director (Anita Dunn) who cited Mao Zedong as one of her “favorite political philosophers”;5 he appointed a “science czar,” John Holdren, who views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment;6 he appointed Van Jones, a longtime revolutionary communist, as his “green jobs czar”;7 and he strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders. The list, of course, could go on and on.George Soros, too, harbors many negative views about capitalism and free markets. “The entire edifice of global financial markets has been erected on the false premise that markets can be left to their own devices,” says Soros. “We must find a new paradigm and rebuild from the ground up.”8 According to Soros, the capitalist “belief that everybody pursuing his self-interest will maximize the common interest … is a false idea.”9 Calling the global capitalist system “deeply flawed,” Soros maintains that “as long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations.”10 As Soros sees things, capitalism “is today a greater threat than any totalitarian ideology.”11 Lamenting that “the richest 1 percent of the world’s population receive as much as the poorest 57 percent,”12 Soros suggests that only by reining in “global capitalism” can that gap be narrowed. He further complains that global capitalism, by encouraging the free flow of money across international borders, reduces the vital “ability of the state to provide Social Security to its citizens.”13 “The globalization of financial markets has rendered the welfare state that came into existence after World War II obsolete,” Soros explains, “because the people who require a social safety net cannot leave the country, but the capital the welfare state used to tax can.”14Soros’s proposed remedy for this problem is a worldwide war on poverty that would transform the entire planet into a global welfare state, a sort of open-society alliance where “a kind of international central bank” could redistribute wealth from rich populations to poor ones.15 Toward this end, Soros announced in September 2006 that he would donate $50 million to the United Nations Millennium Project, a massive redistributive scheme calling for the governments of wealthy countries to commit 0.7% of their GNP to promoting “the economic development and welfare of developing countries.”16 Heading this Project (from 2002-2006) was Jeffrey Sachs, the economist who had worked with Soros in Russia during the Bill Clinton administration. As evidenced by his participation in the Millennium Project,17 Sachs has radically altered his former pro-capitalist positions. Indeed, in recent times he has praised socialists as “both the heirs and the leaders of the world’s most important and most successful political path”; he has lauded their “strong commitment to universalist ethical principles and fiscal re-distribution”; and he has voiced regret that America’s lack of “commitment to re-distribution” has “enabled a massive underclass to develop.”18

Similarly, George Soros sees “the global capitalist system in its present form” as “a distortion of what ought to be a global open society.”19 He suggests that if the “market fundamentalism in America” were “eliminated,” then “the public interest would be better served” by way of “a more equal distribution of wealth.”20

In a November 2008 interview, Soros was asked whether he supported programs falling under the rubric of “big-government” or “European-style ‘socialism.’” He replied, “That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful—but also very harmful to our society.”21

In October 2009, Soros told a Central European University audience that “there is a deep-seated conflict between capitalism and open society.” He observed, moreover, that “Karl Marx[‘s] proposition” of communist redistributionism “was a very attractive idea” that might well have succeeded if not for the unfortunate fact that “the communist rulers put their own interests ahead of the interests of the people.”22 “The failure of the central planning model did not prove the validity of the free enterprise model,” says Soros. “… There is a better way of looking at the world. It is based on the postulate of radical fallibility, according to which all our constructs are flawed in one way or another. Specifically, both models—Communism and free enterprise, or market fundamentalism, as I have rechristened it—are deficient; the deficiency in each one can be cured only by taking some elements from the other.”23

The Call for Global Government

Soros’s desire for a worldwide welfare structure is consistent with his general preference for some form of global government. In 1998 he wrote that “insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.” “The greatest opposition to this idea,” he added somberly, “is coming from the United States.”24

Soros has continued to espouse this perspective ever since. At a 2003 event, a questioner asked Soros whether he and his foundations could “help to bring more foreign influence into the United States instead of relying on what is essentially a balance between Democrats and conservative Republicans, which hasn’t worked and is not about to start working.” Soros replied:

“I think you put your finger on a very important flaw in the current world order. And that is that only Americans have a vote in Congress. And yet it is the United States that basically determines policy for the world. That is a flaw in the current setup. I don’t think you can correct it by giving the Chinese government a vote in Congress. But it is a flaw, and I think this is where American leadership is needed, to take into account and respect the interests of others as well, in order to retain the dominant position we currently enjoy.”25

This call for increased “foreign influence” in American political life is congruent with President Obama’s position on the matter. In March 2009, for instance, Obama appointed Harold Koh, the dean of Yale Law School, as legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. Koh is an advocate of transnationalism, a concept arguing in favor of “global governance” as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states. This perspective holds that the world’s most challenging problems are too complex and deep-rooted for any single country to address effectively on its own. The solution, says Koh, is for all members of the international community to recognize a set of supranational laws and institutions whose authority overrides those of any particular government.26

In March 2007, Koh chastised the U.S. for having “unwisely disengaged from various institutions that promote fundamental human rights, chief among them the International Criminal Court [which would subordinate American criminal-justice procedures in certain cases to those of an international tribunal] and the newly established Human Rights Council” of the United Nations¯a Council whose membership includes a number of nations known for their unrestrained anti-Semitism and human-rights abuses.27 President Obama ultimately announced, in 2009, that the U.S. would join the Council for the first time.28 In November 2010, this Council made headlines when it harshly berated America for its alleged discrimination against Muslims, its barbaric police practices, its use of torture against enemies abroad, and its religious intolerance.29

Another Obama official¯Eric P. Schwartz, the administration’s assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration¯formerly served as director of the U.S. Connect Fund, a Soros-financed organization that promotes global governance.30

Fiscal Policy

Just a few days after Barack Obama was elected President, George Soros stated: “I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets¯because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion-dollar range….”31

Soon thereafter, as one of the first priorities of his presidency, Obama pressured Congress to pass a monumental $787 billion economic-stimulus bill whose text was 1,071 pages long­¯and which few, if any, legislators read before voting on it. Obama stressed the urgency of passing this bill at the earliest possible moment, so as to forestall any further harm to the U.S. economy. Notably, the legislation repealed numerous essentials of the 1996 welfare-reform bill against which George Soros had so strongly rebelled.32 According to a Heritage Foundation report, 32 percent of the new stimulus bill—or an average of $6,700 in “new means-tested welfare spending” for every poor person in the U.S.—was earmarked for social-welfare programs.33 Such unprecedented levels of spending did not at all trouble Soros, who said: “At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable.”34 In December 2009, Obama concurred again—outlining a set of new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals while explaining that America must continue to “spend our way out of this recession.”35

Taxes

In a 2008 interview with Bill Moyers, George Soros derided wealthy Americans who wished to have their tax burden lightened. According to Soros, such people were selfishly eager to “enjo[y] the fruits” of their affluence even as they viewed the act of “paying taxes” as “an absolute no-no”—indeed something veritably “unpatriotic.”36

By Soros’s telling, taxes are inherently desirable in good times and bad alike. In 2010, for instance, he stated that although the U.S. economy was in the midst of a prolonged downturn, it would be imprudent for lawmakers to extend the Bush-era tax cuts which were due to expire on January 1, 2011; such a course of action, he warned, would be “the wrong policy” and would cause the recession to deepen further.37 Soros proposed, instead, that the existing tax rates be permitted to return to their previous, higher levels, and that whatever extra revenue those elevated rates might generate should be used to finance yet another federal “stimulus” program.38 This suggestion was consistent with the funding priorities Soros has long pursued through his Open Society Institute. A substantial percentage of the organizations bankrolled by OSI favor high taxes to fill the coffers of an ever-expanding, government-run welfare state.

Likewise, Barack Obama’s long track record in support of high income taxes, capital gains taxes, and estate taxes for “the wealthy” is well documented.39 Thus it was not surprising that Obama, through most of his early presidency, adamantly opposed any extension of the Bush tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration date. But as the economy foundered and the President’s popularity waned—to say nothing of the historic losses suffered by congressional Democrats in the midterm elections—Obama began to restrict his calls for a tax hike only to those in the highest income brackets.40 In the end, the President, recognizing that the electorate fiercely opposed higher taxes for anyone, pragmatically agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two more years—a move that displeased George Soros greatly.41

Soros’s public stance in favor of higher tax rates for the wealthy is nothing short of remarkable, in light of the fact that he himself has taken some noteworthy measures to avoid paying taxes of his own. Consider, for instance, that his multi-billion-dollar Quantum Fund is actually incorporated on the tiny island of Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles, located in the Caribbean. As such, Soros avoids paying U.S. taxes on it. Americans who invest in his Fund likewise escape the tax man entirely. Their interest, dividends, and capital-gains earnings are taxed only if they are brought into the United States.42 And these investors are precisely the types of high earners who, according to Soros, should be willing to do their “patriotic” duty and pay the taxes that they can well afford; the minimum investment for the Quantum Fund is $100,000.43

By no means has the Quantum Fund been Soros’s only foray into tax-avoiding, offshore business enterprises. Indeed, Soros’s real-estate company, Mapeley Steps, is headquartered in yet another tax haven, Bermuda. In 2001 this firm purchased more than 600 buildings from Inland Revenue (Britain’s equivalent of the IRS) and then leased them to the British government for a princely sum—but paid no taxes, thanks to the Bermuda address.44

Just as Soros has spoken out against calls to reduce income taxes, so has he consistently sided against proposals to lower or eliminate the estate tax (a.k.a. “death tax”), calling it “a valuable taxation” because it “does not interfere with wealth creation” and it “increases social equality.”45 In 2003, Soros and some fellow billionaires went so far as to sign a public letter stating that a repeal of the estate tax “would enrich the heirs of America’s millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet.”46 Yet Soros has creatively found a way for his own heirs to avoid paying any estate taxes, as he once explained:

“A charitable trust is a very interesting tax gimmick. The idea is that you commit your assets to a trust and you put a certain amount of money into charity every year. And then after you have given the money for however many years, the principal that remains can be left [to one’s heirs] without estate or gift tax. So this is the way I set up the trust for my children.”47

Environmental and Energy Policy

George Soros is an avid proponent of cap-and-trade,48 a tax-based policy proposal designed to reduce Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—and to speed up the nation’s transition to alternate forms of energy such as wind and solar power. The idea of cap-and-trade is founded on the planted axiom that the carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions generated by human industrial activity create a greenhouse effect that is causing the earth’s climate to grow dangerously warm. Under cap-and-trade regulations, companies would be subject to taxes or fees if they exceed their government-imposed limit for CO2 emissions. Economists predict that such legislation, if enacted, would impose colossal costs on businesses¯costs that would be passed on to consumers, who in turn would pay anywhere from several hundred to several thousand extra dollars each year in energy costs.49 But to Soros, such a policy is well worth the price. “Dealing with global warming will require a lot of investment” and thus “will be painful,” he acknowledges, but “at least” it will enable humankind to “survive and not cook.” When asked in 2008 whether he was proposing energy policies that would “create a whole new paradigm for the economic model of the country, of the world,” Soros replied succinctly, “Yes.”50 By Soros’s reckoning, America today has “a great opportunity,” through cap-and-trade, “to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence.”51

In 2009, Soros announced that he intended to spend $10 million over a ten-year period to fund the formation of a new Climate Policy Initiative, designed to address global warming by “help[ing] nations achieve low-carbon development” in “the new energy economy.”52 In remarks he made at a January 2010 Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the United Nations, Soros impugned the U.S. as “the laggard” that, by not endorsing the initiatives which that been proposed a month earlier at an international climate-change conference in Copenhagen, had failed to provide adequate leadership with regard to environmental policy.53

Barack Obama, like Soros, is an unwavering backer of cap-and-trade. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama said: “[U]nder my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations.”54

The principal motive underlying the cap-and-trade policies that Obama and Soros support has been articulated by Obama’s “regulation czar,” Cass Sunstein, a longtime proponent of “distributive justice” whereby America would transfer much of its own wealth to poorer nations as compensation for the harm that U.S. environmental transgressions have allegedly caused in those countries. Sunstein speculates that “desirable redistribution” can be “accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”55

Transforming America Through Immigration

In the spring of 2006 and again a year later, television viewers were treated to innumerable images of massive throngs of demonstrators flooding the streets of cities all across the United States, as they protested America’s allegedly unjust and punitive immigration policies. The participants in these rallies demanded such things as amnesty for illegals, paths to citizenship, expanded guest-worker programs, loosened border controls, an end to workplace immigration raids, and a generalized expansion of rights and privileges for illegal immigrants in the United States. These grievance-filled spectacles generated considerable public anxiety; in their size, scope, and execution, they were reminiscent of the “velvet revolution” demonstrations that Soros had bankrolled in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The following groups — all heavily funded by, or otherwise affiliated with, George Soros and his Open Society Institute — were among the key organizers of the “immigrant-rights” demonstrations: ACORN, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Community Change, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and the Gamaliel Foundation.56

The immigration-related agendas of Barack Obama fit hand-in-glove with those of the foregoing Soros-affiliated activist groups. Indeed, the President has repeatedly called for “comprehensive immigration reform” — a euphemism for incremental amnesty. This is but an extension of the voting record that Obama compiled in the U.S. Senate, where he opposed workplace immigration raids; favored a “path to citizenship” so as to “bring people out of the shadows”; advocated laws that would permit illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses; supported the DREAM Act, which would allow illegals to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents; and opposed a Senate amendment calling for the withdrawal of federal assistance to “sanctuary cities” that flout federal immigration laws.57

In 2007 and 2008, Obama was a featured speaker at the annual conventions of the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens. He lauded those in attendance for having worked so hard to “strengthe[n] America together.” “It’s been the work of this organization for four decades,” Obama said, “lifting up families and transforming communities across America. And for that, I honor you, I congratulate you, I thank you, and I wish you another forty years as extraordinary as your last.”58

While generally adorned with carefully crafted rhetoric of human rights and “family reunification,” there is in fact a more politically sinister motive underlying Obama’s and Soros’s support for groups that would not only transform illegals into U.S. citizens, but would also open the floodgates to further mass immigration from impoverished countries below America’s southern border. Obama and Soros alike are well aware that the vast majority of first-generation Hispanic immigrants, once naturalized, tend heavily to vote Democrat. Thus there is a great imperative to import, naturalize, and register as many of these voters as possible in the most expedient practicable manner.59 The ultimate, long-term objective is to establish a permanent Democratic voting bloc in the U.S. for generations to come.

A “Living” Constitution

With fidelity to his “open society” tenet that truth is an ever-evolving and ever-elusive concept, George Soros firmly rejects the notion that the U.S. Constitution is a document of unique or unrivaled merit¯or, by logical extension, that its original intent must be permanently revered and adhered to, rather than deconstructed or reinterpreted as the changing needs and preferences of the times may dictate. In April 2005, Soros’s Open Society Institute was a leading financial sponsor of a Yale Law School conference called “The Constitution in 2020,” promoted as an effort to produce “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.” Other major sponsors of the event included the American Constitution Society and the Center for American Progress¯both major recipients of Soros funding.60 Speakers at the conference repeatedly stressed the “evolutionary character of constitutional law”¯a premise crucial to the work of anyone who, like Soros, seeks to fundamentally transform a society.61

Barack Obama, who himself has openly vowed to “fundamentally transform” the United States, shares precisely this same view of the Constitution. In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote that the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Moreover, he asserted that, if elected to the White House, he would not appoint a strict constructionist — one who seeks to apply the Constitution’s text as it is written and without further inference — to the Supreme Court.62 True to his word, President Obama has thus far appointed two Supreme Court Justices — Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — both of whom reject strict constructionism.

Sotomayor, for her part, is an advocate of legal realism, which the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) describes as a judicial philosophy that is “diametrically opposed to the concept of strict construction/originalism as advocated by conservative legal thinkers and judges.” TVC adds that according to legal realism: “[J]udges should do more than interpret the law or look to the original intent of the writers of the law or the Constitution. Judges should bring in outside influences from social sciences, psychology and politics, plus their own views, to craft the law….” Suggesting that the public wrongly expects “the law to be static and predictable,” Sotomayor contends that courts and lawyers are “constantly overhauling the laws and adapting it [sic] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”63 Meanwhile, Elena Kagan has approvingly cited former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall’s assertion that the Constitution, “as originally drafted and conceived,” was “defective.”64

Promoting Socialized Medicine in the United States

As noted earlier, George Soros has long favored a greater role for government in the American healthcare system. During the political debate over “Obamacare” in 2009 and 2010, one of the most influential pro-reform coalitions was Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a vast network of organizations supporting, ideally, a “single-payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.65 HCAN’s strategy was to try to achieve such a system incrementally, first by implementing a “public option”—i.e., a government insurance agency to “compete” with private insurers, so that Americans would be “no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.”66 Because such an agency would not need to show a profit in order to remain in business, and because it could tax and regulate its private competitors in whatever fashion it pleased, this “public option” would inevitably force private insurers out of the industry.

In August 2009, Soros pledged to give HCAN $5 million to promote its campaign for reform.67 HCAN’s organizational members include a host of Soros-affiliated organizations, among which are such stalwarts as the ACLU, ACORN, the AFL-CIO, the AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Center for Community Change, the Gamaliel Foundation, the League of United Latin American Citizens, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the National Abortion Federation, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, the Progressive States Network, and USAction.68 Many of these member groups regularly receive large amounts of Soros funding directly from the Open Society Institute. Some of that money was undoubtedly used to bankroll the healthcare reform crusade, thus we can say with certainty that Soros’s real contributions to the cause far exceeded the $5 million he gave to HCAN.

Terrorism As a Criminal Matter, Rather Than an Act of War

Ever since the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11, George Soros has emphasized that it is “more appropriate” for the U.S. government to treat such events as “crimes against humanity” rather than acts of war, and that a proper response thus involves “police work, not military action.”69 Numerous Soros-funded organizations espouse this view as well, as evidenced by their efforts to ensure that suspected terrorists are tried in civilian courts rather than in military tribunals.70 The latter venues, where military officers serve as the judges and jurors, are designed specifically to deal with offenses committed in the context of warfare. Significantly, they permit prosecutors to use secret evidence that may have been obtained by means of enhanced interrogation methods, whereas civilian courts forbid the admittance of such evidence. Among the Soros-funded groups that look with strong disfavor upon military tribunals are the American Constitution Society,71 the Center for Constitutional Rights,72 the American Civil Liberties Union,73 and Human Rights Watch.74

Their perspective is very much in line with that of Barack Obama. Immediately following his inauguration, in fact, Obama’s first act as U.S. President was to order the suspension of all military tribunals that had been established to adjudicate the cases of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which continued to house more than 200 al Qaeda and Taliban combatants captured by the American military during its post-9/11 wars in the Mideast.75 Obama, like Soros, favors a criminal-justice-oriented approach to terrorism and thus would prefer to try the perpetrators in civilian court¯where they would enjoy the enhanced rights and protections that such courts afford to all defendants.

This approach to terrorism has set the tone for every member of the Obama administration. In March 2009, for instance, Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano broke with her agency’s traditional practice of warning the American public about potential “terrorist” threats, and instead began referring to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”76 Two months later the Obama Justice Department¯again demonstrating its preference for treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue rather than as a military matter¯ordered the FBI to read Miranda warnings to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.77 In November, the Obama administration announced that it planned to try five Guantanamo detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy in a civilian court.78

Then, on Christmas Day of 2009, a Nigerian al Qaeda operative boarded a Northwest Airlines flight (from Amsterdam to Detroit) and attempted, without success, to blow up the plane in midair with a powerful chemical bomb. In public remarks soon after the incident, President Obama referred to the man as an “isolated extremist” rather than as a terrorist or a jihadist. In subsequent days the administration announced that it would offer the perpetrator a plea agreement to persuade him to reveal what he knew about al Qaeda operations in Yemen; if such an arrangement could not be worked out, the government planned to try him in federal civilian court.79

In November 2010, al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani¯responsible for the deaths of 224 people in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania¯became the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in civilian court and was acquitted on all but one of the charges against him.80
The “Responsibility to Protect

In March 2011, President Obama, without consulting Congress, authorized the involvement of the U.S. military in imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya, to prevent President Moammar Qaddafi’s forces from bombing rebels who were challenging his regime. On March 21, the White House announced the initiation of “a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

According to reports, Samantha Power, Obama’s National Security Council special adviser on human rights, was instrumental in persuading Obama to take this action against Libya. Power is a longtime advocate of the doctrine known as the “Responsibility to Protect,” which encourages the international community to intervene in a particular country’s internal affairs — with military force if necessary — in order to thwart genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, which is the world’s leading advocate of this doctrine, is funded by the Open Society Institute. In a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article, George Soros himself discussed the fundamentals of the Responsibility to Protect, writing:

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.”


Organizations Where the Soros and Obama Agendas Intersect

By way of the many hundreds of pro-Obama groups that George Soros funds on a regular basis, there are literally thousands of political and financial ties that exist between Soros and the President. A comprehensive discussion of these connections could more than fill the pages of a large book. Nevertheless, a few key entities that serve as vital contact points in the Obama-Soros relationship are well worth noting here.

Center for American Progress

The Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) may well have more influence on the Obama presidency than any other organization in existence. This left-wing think tank formulates policy for the administration and supplies the White House with a steady stream of talking points designed to make that policy palatable to the public. In fact, as of December 2008, before then-President-elect Obama had even taken his oath of office, he had already pledged his intent to fulfill some of CAP’s chief policy recommendations. These included the Center’s call for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq coupled with a buildup of forces in Afghanistan, a plan to implement universal health coverage, and a plan to create “green jobs” designed to combat “global warming.”81 According to Bloomberg.com, CAP “has become … an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the … Obama administration.”82

Emblematic of this was the synergy that Obama and CAP displayed in dealing with the disastrous BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the spring of 2010.83 In May and June of that year, when the crisis was at its height,84 Obama took his cue from the Center on a number of important occasions. For example:

  • On May 4, CAP’s energy and environment expert, Daniel Weiss, advised Obama to create an independent commission to examine the causes of the crisis; eighteen days later, the President did exactly that.
  • On May 21, CAP president John Podesta privately exhorted White House officials to name someone to be the public point person for the oil-spill response. A week later, the Obama administration announced that Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen would fill that role.
  • On May 26, Daniel Weiss advised the White House to demand that BP immediately set up a multi-billion-dollar escrow account to pay damage claims to Gulf-state residents harmed by the spill. Some three weeks later, Obama issued precisely that demand.85

On virtually every policy matter—health-care reform, fiscal policy, civil rights, immigration, housing, labor, national security, foreign policy, media, energy, or the environment—CAP’s recommendations fit hand-in-glove with the Obama administration’s values and agendas. In many cases, as in the examples cited above, the administration actually follows CAP’s instructions. In a very real sense, George Soros dictates his policy recommendations to the Obama White House through the Center for American Progress.
International Crisis Group

One of the more significant beneficiaries of George Soros’s funding is the International Crisis Group (ICG), a nonprofit organization that makes policy recommendations ostensibly designed to foster goodwill among nations.86 In 2008, the Open Society Institute gave a whopping $5 million to this entity,87 on whose executive committee Soros himself sits.88 One of ICG’s leading figures is its Mideast director, Robert Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer who in 2007 was named as a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign.

Obama has long held Malley, who formerly served in the Clinton administration, in high regard as a policy analyst. Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.89 These views are of a piece with George Soros’s “open society” ideal, whose moral relativism leads inescapably to the conclusion that one man’s terrorist is indeed another man’s freedom fighter¯and, by logical extension, that no nation should be so proud as to be unwilling to conduct diplomacy with its foes. In mid-2008, however, the Obama campaign severed its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that the ICG official had quietly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.90

Notwithstanding Malley’s fall from grace, Barack Obama’s foreign policies have been, from the outset of his presidency, very much in line with the recommendations of the Soros-funded ICG. For one, Obama has often emphasized his willingness to negotiate with even the most unyielding enemies of the United States, and has sought to persuade Israel to take that same approach. Six days after his inauguration, for instance, Obama granted his first television interview as U.S. President to Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based network, where he stated: “[A]ll too often the United States starts by dictating … and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” He subsequently called on Israel to drop its “preconceptions” and negotiate for peace with Hamas, the terrorist organization whose founding charter remains irrevocably committed to the permanent destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews. Obama further signaled an eagerness to conduct “unconditional talks” on nuclear matters with Iran91¯even as that nation was actively supplying high-tech weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah, and even after its president had repeatedly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”92 Not long thereafter, the Obama administration announced its desire to negotiate with Taliban “moderates,” with the aim of bringing the war in Afghanistan to a close.93

J Street

J Street was founded in 2008 “to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli … conflicts peacefully and diplomatically.” Key to achieving this objective, says the organization, will be the development of “a new direction for American policy in the Middle East,” a direction that recognizes “the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own”—where Palestine and Israel exist “side-by-side in peace and security.”94 Toward this end, J Street supports “diplomatic solutions over military ones,” “multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution,” and “dialogue over confrontation.”95 Israel’s partner in such a dialogue would necessarily be Hamas, which holds the reins of political power in Gaza and steadfastly denies Israel’s right to exist. Yet J Street has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter “has been the government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections in January 2006 and especially since June 2007 when it took complete control.”96 In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.”97

The foregoing positions are largely indistinguishable from those of President Obama, who likewise favors a two-state solution whereby Israel and “a sovereign Palestine” would live “side by side—in peace.”98 To achieve such a resolution, he says, initiatives to construct additional Israeli settlements in the West Bank “have to be stopped.”99 In October 2009, Obama signaled his support for J Street’s agendas when he sent national security advisor James Jones to deliver the keynote address at a J Street conference.100

Another avid supporter of J Street is George Soros, though the billionaire initially tried to conceal that support from the public—for fear that his controversial reputation might scare off other potential backers. But in September 2010 The Washington Times revealed that from 2008-2010, Soros and his two children—Jonathan and Andrea—had given a total of $750,000 to the organization.101 It is worth noting, moreover, that J Street’s Advisory Council includes a number of individuals with very close ties to Soros.102 Among them are the following:

Soros shares J Street’s belief that Israel should recognize, and negotiate with, the Hamas-led Palestinian government. In the April 12, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros penned an article titled “On Israel, America and AIPAC,”103 wherein he derided the Bush administration for “committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East” by “supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, which the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization.” In Soros’ calculus, “This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a conflagration in the greater Middle East.” Added Soros:

“Israel, with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians … [B]oth Israel and the United States seem to be frozen in their unwillingness to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. The sticking point is Hamas’s unwillingness to recognize the existence of Israel; but that [recognition] could be made a condition for an eventual settlement rather than a precondition for negotiations.… The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation—not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one—has reached a particularly dangerous point.”104

By no means is Hamas the only Islamic terrorist organization which Soros views as a legitimate political entity and a suitable negotiating partner for Israel. Indeed, in early February 2011 he cast Hamas’s ideological comrade, the Muslim Brotherhood,105 in much the same light. At the time, a massive wave of violent riots were taking place in Egypt—ostensibly triggered by public discontent over Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic rule, governmental corruption, and the country’s widespread poverty.106 Meanwhile, there was much speculation that if Mubarak were to be forced out of office, the Brotherhood was likely to fill the power vacuum. Said Soros:

“President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for [a new Egyptian government of] dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America’s leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes [such as Mubarak’s]. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system.”107

Soros made that assertion even though:

(a) The Muslim Brotherhood—a supporter of Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad108—had made it explicitly clear that it favored the dissolution of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

(b) The Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, had stated that his organization has never recognized Israel and never will, adding: “Our lexicon does not include anything called ‘Israel.’ The [only thing] we acknowledge is the existence of Zionist gangs that have occupied Arab lands and deported the residents. If they want to live among us, it will have to be as [residents of] Palestine. If they want their own state, our only option is to object.”109

(c) Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel,” emphasizing that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”110

Notwithstanding the Brotherhood’s unequivocal contempt for Israel and the Jews, Soros lamented that “the main stumbling block” likely to prevent that organization from becoming part of a new “democracy” in Egypt “is Israel.”111 “In reality,” said Soros, “Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him.”112

As Aaron Klein reported in WorldNetDaily on February 6, 2011, the Middle East and North Africa Initiative of the Open Society Institute had recently provided “numerous grants to a wide range of projects that promote so-called democratic issues across the region, including in Egypt.”113 Some four months before the rioting started, OSI was seeking to expand its work in Egypt by hiring a new project manager for its Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, which was run in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative.114 OSI had also bankrolled the main opposition voice in Tunisia, Radio Kalima,115 a leading promoter of the January 2011 riots that forced Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to resign on January 14.116


American Constitution Society

Heavily funded by the Open Society Institute, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is a Washington, DC-based think tank that seeks to push American jurisprudence ever-further to the left politically.
In June 2008, ACS board member Eric Holder, whom president-elect Barack Obama would name as his choice for Attorney General five months later, spoke at an ACS convention. Predicting an Obama victory in the November election, Holder told his audience that the U.S. soon would be “run by progressives”¯of whom a “substantial number” were likely to be ACS members.117 By December 2008, several major ACS figures already had secured positions in the forthcoming Obama administration.118 That very month, in fact, one particularly influential former member of the ACS board of advisors, Hillary Clinton, was chosen to serve as Obama’s secretary of state.

ACORN and Project Vote

Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern writes that the Shadow Party member-group ACORN, while professing its dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact “promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor”¯pushing for “ever more government control of the economy” and “anti-capitalist redistributionism.”119 ACORN’s Independent Advisory Council has featured such Soros-affiliated luminaries as Andrew Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, and John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress.120

Obama, for his part, was the attorney for ACORN’s lead election-law cases before joining the Illinois legislature.121 Also in the early to mid-1990s, he helped train ACORN’s staff in the art of radical community organizing.122 In 1995 Obama sued, on behalf of ACORN, for the implementation of an Illinois motor-voter law which ultimately would become a breeding ground for voter fraud.123 He also served for several years on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which awarded a number of sizable grants to ACORN.124 When ACORN officially endorsed Obama for U.S. President in February 2008, the candidate welcomed the endorsement and told an audience of ACORN workers and supporters: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career.”125 That same year, Obama’s presidential campaign quietly gave one of ACORN’s front groups some $800,000 to fund a voter-registration drive on the senator’s behalf.126 As of October 2008, ACORN was under investigation for voter-registration fraud in 13 states.127

Project Vote is ACORN’s Soros-funded voter-mobilization arm. From April to November of 1992, Barack Obama was director of the organization’s Illinois chapter.128 In 2008, Obama’s presidential campaign furnished Project Vote with a list of donors who had already given the campaign the maximum sum of money permitted by law. In turn, Project Vote representatives contacted those donors and urged them to make contributions to the ACORN affiliate¯funds which could then be used to support Obama’s candidacy while technically complying with election-law limits on campaign donations.129 That same year, the Open Society Institute gave Project Vote $400,000.130

MoveOn.org

In a massive mobilization aimed at helping Barack Obama win the presidency in 2008, this powerful Soros-affiliated organization dispatched approximately a million volunteers to work on Obama’s campaign nationwide¯600,000 in battleground states and 400,000 in non-battleground states. In addition, MoveOn registered more than half a million young Obama supporters to vote in the battleground states, while adding a million young people to its membership rolls during the summer of 2008. All told, MoveOn and its members contributed more than $58 million directly to the Obama campaign, while raising and spending at least an additional $30 million in independent election efforts on behalf of other Democrats across the United States.131 In November 2003, Soros pledged $5 million to MoveOn.132


More Soros-Obama Connections

Following is a brief overview of some prominent individuals with close political ties to Barack Obama on the one hand, and who also have been influenced in some significant way by George Soros’s money, on the other.

Van Jones

A self-professed revolutionary communist who has long endeavored to ignite transformative revolution in the United States,133 Van Jones spent six months as President Obama’s “green jobs czar” in 2009, until public controversy over his recently exposed radical past forced him to resign.

From 1996-2007, Jones headed the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which, claiming that the American criminal-justice system was infested with racism, sought to promote alternatives to incarceration.134 Between 1999 and 2009, the Baker Center received more than $1 million from George Soros‘s Open Society Institute.135

In 2007 Jones launched Green For All (GFA), an organization “dedicated to building an inclusive green economy” that would provide a vehicle for large-scale wealth redistribution.136 One of GFA’s major funders is the Open Society Institute ($75,000 in 2008).137

Over the years, Jones has been a board member of numerous environmental and nonprofit organizations, including the Soros-funded Free Press and the environmentalist group Apollo Alliance, which was launched by the Soros-backed Tides Foundation.138 The Apollo Alliance helped craft portions of the $787 billion “stimulus” legislation that President Obama signed into law in early 2009. Specifically, the organization had a hand in writing the “clean energy and green-collar jobs provisions” of the bill, for which $86 billion was earmarked.139

Today, Jones serves as one of twenty advisors to the Colorado-based Presidential Climate Action Project, which makes climate-policy recommendations for the Obama White House.140 Jones is also a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP)¯the think tank that promotes virtually all of Obama’s political agendas.141

Andrew Stern

Former New Leftist Andrew Stern served as president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the second-largest labor union in North America, from 1996 until April 2010. He was trained in the tactics of radical activism at the Midwest Academy, which received $10,000 from Soros in 1997. Stern also helped form America Votes, a Soros-funded coalition of grassroots, get-out-the-vote organizations.
And he sat on the executive committee of America Coming Together, to which Soros famously gave $10 million in 2003.142

In 2008, Stern’s SEIU spent approximately $60.7 million to help elect Barack Obama to the White House¯deploying some 100,000 pro-Obama volunteers during the campaign.143 Stern went on to become an immensely influential advisor to President Obama. As of October 30, 2009, the union magnate had visited the White House 22 times since Obama’s inauguration¯more than any other individual.144
In February 2010, Obama appointed Stern to sit on a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.145

David Axelrod

David Axelrod serves as a key strategist for Barck Obama. In 2004, Axelrod’s political consulting firm received at least $229,000 from the Media Fund, a Soros-backed Shadow Party organization which ran some $53 million in pro-John Kerry presidential campaign ads.146

Carol Browner

On January 22, 2009, President Obama named Carol Browner to serve as his “environment czar.” Browner previously had been a “commissioner” with the Socialist International, an umbrella group for scores of “social democratic, socialist and labor parties” in 55 countries. She is currently a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Center for American Progress, and the League of Conservation Voters¯all of which are funded by George Soros.147



Anna Burger

Called “the most powerful women in the labor movement” by Fortune magazine and nicknamed the “Queen of Labor,” Anna Burger is dedicated to building the progressive movement in the United States. She has had a long career with the SEIU, where she currently serves as international secretary-treasurer.148 In February 2009, President Obama appointed her to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
 Burger is also vice chair of the Soros-affiliated Democracy Alliance.149

Kevin Jennings

In 1990 Kevin Jennings established the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a Boston-area organization that is funded, in part, by the Open Society Institute.150 In June 2009, President Obama appointed Jennings as assistant deputy secretary of education¯or “education czar.”

Mark Lloyd

A great admirer of Venezuela’s Communist president Hugo Chavez, Mark Lloyd has served as a consultant to the Open Society Institute and as vice president of strategic initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a legislative advocacy group that receives financial backing from George Soros. In July 2009, Lloyd, a senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, was appointed as President Obama’s diversity chief at the Federal Communications Commission.151

Jim Wallis

A former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society, this self-described activist preacher has long championed the cause of communism. Unremittingly critical of the free-market system, Wallis has often impugned capitalism for its historical lack of success. “Our systems have failed the poor and they have failed the earth,” he says. “They have failed the creation.”152 In a January 2006 radio interview with Interfaith Voices, Wallis was asked to clarify whether he was in fact “calling for the redistribution of wealth in society.” He replied, “Absolutely, without any hesitation. That’s what the gospel is all about.”153 Today Wallis is a spiritual advisor to President Obama.
George SorosOpen Society Institute has made grants to Sojourners, the leftist publication that Wallis founded, in the amounts of $200,000 in 2004,154 $25,000 in 2006,155 and $100,000 in 2007.156
NOTES:

1 http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_43/b4055047.htm

2 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/barack_obama_red_diaper_baby_1.html

3 Stanley Kurtz, Radical In Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010)

4 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2364 (The reference is to Carol Browner.)

5 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2434 (The reference is to Anita Dunn.)

6 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368 (The reference is to John Holdren.)

7 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406 (The reference is to Van Jones.)

8 http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1293869054.pdf

9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBbF09-ZkII

10 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), p. 102

11 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998), pp. xvii

12 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. 10

13 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (2000), p. 203

14 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. 3

15 George Soros, “Avoiding a Breakdown: Asia’s Crisis Demands a Rethink of International Regulation,” Financial Times of London (December 31, 1997); George Soros, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism (2000), p. 276.

16 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091300283.html ; http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/press/07.htm

17 http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/who/sachs.htm

18 http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/12/confirmed-soros-associate-jeffrey-sachs.html

19 George Soros, George Soros on Globalization, p. viii

20 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/open-society-soros-explains-the-anti-capitalist-pro-marxist-tactics-he-uses-to-fundamentally-transform-countries/

21 http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,592268,00.html

22 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/open-society-soros-explains-the-anti-capitalist-pro-marxist-tactics-he-uses-to-fundamentally-transform-countries/

23 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), pp. 168-169

24 George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (2000), p. xxix

25 http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3208&Itemid=2

26 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2385 ; http://pcr.hudson.org/files/publications/2008_Bradley_Symposium_Fonte_Essay.pdf

27 http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/koh032907.pdf ; http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227209/obama-joins-human-rights-charade-anne-bayefsky (Among the member nations are China, Cuba, Libya, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.)

28 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227209/obama-joins-human-rights-charade-anne-bayefsky

29 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/04/united-nations-human-rights-council/

30 http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=185013

31 http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,592268,00.html

32 http://articles.mcall.com/1996-10-01/news/3126013_1_legal-immigrants-welfare-reform-law-rosalind-gold

33 http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=f52c747b-298a-465b-9d26-bce95f296633&t=c ; http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33989

34 http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,592268,00.html

35 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1

36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBbF09-ZkII

37 http://www.cnbc.com/id/39614125/Extending_Bush_Tax_Cuts_Hurts_the_Wealthy_Soros

38 http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/oct/05/george-soros-dont-extend-bush-tax-cuts/

39 http://www.issues2000.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#Voting_Record

40 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

41 http://www.cnbc.com/id/39614125/Extending_Bush_Tax_Cuts_Hurts_the_Wealthy_Soros

42 Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire, 2002, p. 135; Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), pp. 164-165.

43 Charles Ellis and James Vertin, Wall Street People: True Stories of Today’s Masters and Moguls, Volume 2 (2001), p. 112.

44 “Revenue Sells 600 Buildings to Bermuda-Based Company.” Trends and Developments, Volume 8, Issue 10 (October 2002); Cited in Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), p. 165.

45 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0214-01.htm; http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/taxation/3218-the-estate-tax-non-repeal.html

46 David Kay Johnston, “Dozens of Rich Americans Join in Fight to Retain Estate Tax,” New York Times (February 14, 2001)

47 Quoted in Michael T. Kaufman, Soros: The Life And Times Of A Messianic Billionaire; Cited in Peter Schweizer, Do As I Say (2005), pp. 165-166.

48 http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,592268,00.html

49 http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/12/Beware-of-Cap-and-Trade-Climate-Bills

50 http://keywiki.org/index.php/George_Soros_-_Political/Financial_Stances

51 http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,592268,00.html

52 http://keywiki.org/index.php/George_Soros_-_Political/Financial_Stances ; http://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/mission.html

53 http://keywiki.org/index.php/George_Soros_-_Political/Financial_Stances

54 http://tv.breitbart.com/obama-vows-electricity-rates-would-necessarily-skyrocket-under-his-plan/

55 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112243

56 Ben Johnson, “Who’s Behind the Immigration Rallies?” FrontPageMag.com (March 29, 2006)

57 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511

58 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071501138_pf.html

59 David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party (2006), p. 103

60 Richard Poe, “Soros Rewrites U.S. Constitution,” MoonbatCentral.com (April 9, 2005)

61 Scott Johnson, “The $80,000 Misunderstanding,” PowerlineBlog.com (April 9, 2005)

62 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511

63 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2396

64 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2398

65 http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/statement_of_common_purpose

66 http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/about_us/

67 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/us/politics/30dems.html; http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/george-soros-pledges-5-million-to-bankroll-health-care-reform-push-group-says/; http://nation.foxnews.com/george-soros/2009/08/11/soros-gives-5-million-liberal-health-care-group; http://www.newsmax.com/LowellPonte/obama-pelosi-acorn/2009/12/12/id/341854

68 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7488

69 George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 18

70 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=546; George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy (2004), p. 38.

71 http://www.acslaw.org/taxonomy/term/1476

72 http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/faqs%3A-military-commisions-act

73 http://www.aclu.org/national-security/john-adams-project-american-values

74 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/us-revisions-can-t-fix-military-commissions

75 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-mr-obamas-international-overtures-deserve-a-response-1488579.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/washington/22gitmo.html?hp

76 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/03/19/obama-speak-homeland-security-secretary-replaces-terrorism-term-man-caus

77 http://jewishworldreview.com/david/limbaugh061209.php3

78 http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/khalid.sheikh.mohammed/index.html

79 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ag_crotch_bomber_civilian_trial_M0RMk1i43uPTx2BUykCxAO

80 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027710.php

81 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aF7fB1PF0NPg

82 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aF7fB1PF0NPg

83 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/29/bp-oil-spill-timeline-deepwater-horizon

84 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/29/bp-oil-spill-timeline-deepwater-horizon

85 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/14/wh-takes-cues-from-liberal-think-tank-on-spill/

86 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6218

87 http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/137/137029285/137029285_200812_990PF.pdf

88 http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx

89 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html

90 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64162

91 http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33893

92 http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2009/01/28/the_day_america_lost_the_war_on_terror

93 http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=33893

94 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7458

95 http://www.jstreet.org/about/about-us

96 http://www.jstreet.org/page/are-israel’s-goals-attacking-hamas-militarily-achievable

97 http://www.jstreet.org/page/settlements

98 http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7694664&page=1%20;

99 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6315072.ece

100 http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/30/blaming-israel-first-by-p-david-hornik/

101 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/24/soros-funder-liberal-jewish-american-lobby/

102 http://www.jstreet.org/supporters/advisory_council

103 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/apr/12/on-israel-america-and-aipac/

104 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/apr/12/on-israel-america-and-aipac/

105 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6386

106 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4020717,00.html

107 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205041.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

108 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Muslim%20Brotherhood.pdf

109 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Public%20Debate%20on%20the%20Political%20Platform.html

110 http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=206130

111 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205041.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

112 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020205041.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

113 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=260577

114 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=260577; http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/about

115 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=260577

116 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12157599

117 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/us/politics/11network.html; http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6707

118 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/us/politics/11network.html (Executive Director Lisa Brown had been named as Obama’s White House Staff Secretary. ACS Board of Directors member Goodwin Liu had been named to the Obama-Biden transition team. Joining Liu on the transition team was another ACS Board of Directors member, Dawn Johnsen. Former ACS staffer Melody Barnes had been selected to direct the Obama administration’s Domestic Policy Council. Former ACS Board member Ronald Klain had been named chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden.

119 http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nutty_regime.html

120 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/09/21/acorn-independent-advisory-council-member-stern-lets-loose-acorns-critic

121 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NmaZIdz6Vo

122 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224610/inside-obamas-acorn/stanley-kurtz; Frank De Zutter, “What Makes Obama Run?” Chicago Reader (December 8, 1995)

123 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/acorn_fannie_mae_and_motor_vot.html

124 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511 (These grants included $45,000 in 2000, $75,000 in 2001, and $70,000 in 2002.)

125 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511

126 http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1225223330.pdf ; http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/22/acorn-watch-pt-ii-obama-hid-800000-payment-to-acorn-through-citizen-services-inc/

127 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225978/identification-required-deroy-murdock

128 http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/22/acorn-watch-pt-ii-obama-hid-800000-payment-to-acorn-through-citizen-services-inc/

129 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/10/29/witness-obama-camp-gave-acorn-like-group-donor-list/ ;
http://netrightdaily.com/2010/05/obama-acorn-and-stealth-socialism-dire-domestic-threat/

130 http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/137/137029285/137029285_200812_990PF.pdf

131 http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2008/11/obama-benefits-from-moveons-88.php

132 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/11/55615/610

133 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406

134 http://www.ellabakercenter.org/page.php?pageid=19&contentid=151

135 http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/31/obamas-desecrators-of-911/1

136 http://www.greenforall.org/about-us ; http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7554

137 http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990pf_pdf_archive/137/137029285/137029285_200812_990PF.pdf; http://www.aim.org/aim-column/soros-money-financed-communist-van-jones/

138 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2406

139http://apolloalliance.org/feature-articles/clean-energy-provisions-of-stimulus-are-consistent-with-apollo-economic-recovery-act/

140 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117548

141 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/van_jones.html

142 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1830

143 http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/28/nation/na-stern28

144 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/30/seius-stern-tops-white-house-visitor-list/

145 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-names-members-bipartisan-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-

146 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/the_sorosaxelrod_axis_of_astro.html ; http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Axelrod_and_the_outside_groups.html

147 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2364

148 http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/anna-burger.php

149 http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2445

150 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-jennings

151 http://www.netcaucus.org/biography/mark-lloyd.shtml

152 http://www.reachingout.org/programs_5_text.html

153 http://www.examiner.com/political-transcripts-in-national/president-s-spiritual-advisor-obama-feels-he-hasn-t-had-a-chance-video

154 http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/137/137029285/137029285_200412_990PF.pdf

155 http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/137/137029285/137029285_200612_990PF.pdf

156 http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/137/137029285/137029285_200712_990PF.pdf

Nixon BOOTED lying to protect his supporters! Obama’S FRAUD A lie and we die!

His lies crushed the middle class, and those of you that believed his lies! He must be stopped before he crushes the entire country! Vote out every democRAT and establishment republican. The only good republICANS are the Ted Cruz’s, Mike Lee’s and Rand Paul’s and those that agree with them! WAKE UP AMERICA!

Health Care Shoppers Aren’t as Dumb as Obama ThinkS

By | Yahoo Finance – 23 hours ago

  • U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts October 30, 2013. In 2006 in Faneuil Hall, then Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed a law mandating health insurance for most of the state's residents. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS HEALTH)

    Reuters/REUTERS – U.S. President Barack Obama arrogantly speaks about the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaScare, at Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts October 30, 2013.

  • Similar to how our arrogant president holds his chin!
    Similar to how our arrogant president holds his chin!  Mussolini arrogantly telling the Italian people of all the wonderful things he is doing for them!

President Obama calls them “substandard” insurance plans. But to many of the people who bought individual insurance policies that are now being canceled under the Affordable Care Act, their choice of insurance was a prudent decision that met their needs at a price that will be hard to beat under the ACA.

Jim Stadler is one of the “5 percenters”—the 5% of Americans with health insurance policies they purchased on their own—who got notified recently that their carrier was canceling coverage because it didn’t meet the tougher new minimum requirements of the ACA. Stadler, a freelance writer who lives outside of Charlotte, N.C., was laid off from a full-time job at an ad agency in 2009, at which point he became a freelancer and bought individual health coverage for him and his two kids.

Jim Stadler of suburban Charlotte, N.C., whose health insurance is being axed on account of the Affordable Care … Under Stadler’s expiring policy, his premiums are $411 a month, for coverage that always seemed adequate to him. “It’s not a substandard policy,” he says. “I thought it was a great deal.” The premium for the new policy offered by his insurer will be $843 a month, with coverage that’s more or less the same as far as he’s concerned. But new policies are required to include free preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies, and they can’t be canceled or priced higher for sicker people, which is why the cost of some policies is going up.

Since Stadler’s family’s income is too high to qualify for federal subsidies, he’s considering putting his kids on the policy his wife, a teacher, gets through her job. But that would be expensive, too. “The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”

The 5-percenter problem could end up being a much more serious albatross for Obamacare and its mostly Democratic supporters than the notorious web site snafus and other temporary snags, which can mostly be fixed. Obama did, in fact, say repeatedly, “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.” But policies held by as many as 10 million Americans don’t meet the minimum requirements of the law and are now being canceled. Obama this week added a “vast majority” clause to his earlier claim: “For the vast majority of people who have health insurance that works, you can keep it,” he said in a recent speech on health-care reform.

Obama also continues to point out that many people whose insurance is being cancelled will get a better deal through one of the new exchanges, because of federal subsides offered to lower-income people to help them pay for coverage. The real losers, by contrast, are people like Stadler who won’t qualify for subsidies, and will no longer be able to buy “substandard” policies, either. Many such people will face higher costs for better coverage they wouldn’t choose to pay for on their own, which is exactly the type of Washington-knows-better policymaking that outrages Tea Partiers and many independents who think the government has become too invasive.

Distrust of Obamacare and the people running it has been compounded by the malfunctioning web site and the sheer complexity of the law and its many requirements. Jeanne Patterson of Drexel Hill, Pa., will be losing coverage at the end of the year, and her insurance carrier told her she must choose another plan by Nov. 20 or she won’t be able to get coverage for 2014. The White House, meanwhile, has said it may take until Nov. 30 to fix the crash-prone federal web site. The ACA gives people who choose a plan through an exchange until Dec. 15 to purchase coverage that would take effect Jan. 1, but like many others, Patterson hasn’t been able to navigate the buggy site to find out what her options are.

Patterson, a 58-year-old unemployed insurance broker, pays $500 a month for insurance now, plus about $100 in co-pays for three brand-name medications used to treat chronic migraines. She might qualify for subsidies under the exchange that would help lower her premiums, but she worries that her out-of-pocket costs for drugs will skyrocket. “I had a really good plan,” she says. “My main problem now is uncertainty. It has me sick. I don’t know whether or not I’ll have health care and I don’t know what it will cost me.”

Obama and his supporters have characterized many people who buy individual insurance policies as dupes who don’t realize they’re paying exorbitant prices for an inferior product. In his recent speech, for instance, Obama described such coverage as “cut-rate plans” offered by “bad-apple insurers” that “don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.”

But many of the 5-percenters Obama is referring to see a cruel irony the president may not be aware of. “They canceled my insurance, then said, ‘Hey go get yourself some insurance, and if you don’t, we’re going to fine you,’”says Nate Quarry, a 41-year-old former mixed martial arts fighter who lives outside of Portland, Ore., and whose insurance will expire at year-end. Quarry was happy with the $650-a-month plan that covered him and his daughter. He doesn’t qualify for subsidies, so he’s been looking for a new individual policy similar to the one he’s losing.

So far, the insurance companies he’s called and emailed don’t seem interested in covering him. “I feel like I’m standing on a used car lot saying I want to buy a car, and nobody’s looking at me,” Quarry says. “Is this really happening?” Once the dust settles from the turbulent Obamacare launch, maybe an insurance company will step forward to take his money.

Rick Newman’s latest book is Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

 

Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul show leadership, and they only get grief and negativity from the press (even many on Fox) the establishment repubs & democRATS! If you think the TEA party is a bunch of crazies, I CHALLENGE YOU to go to one of their rallies and see you, your friends and rational neighbors!  The TEA Party is only those trying to stop the crooks (from both parties) in Washington, District of Corruption!

 

HE LIES WHENEVER HIS LIPS MOVE: Here are just a few reminders for you–

I know nothing about gun running to Mexico!

I’ll never raise taxes on you if you make less than $275,000 a year!

If you like your doctor you can keep him!

If you like your current health insurance, you can keep it!

Benghazi was caused by a slimy video!

We will get the murderers of our four American patriots in Benghazi!

I got Ben Laden!

Geez!  We could write a book on his lies alone!  I’ll stop here for the sake of time and space!

 

No Barry, they were not a "bump in the road" but 2 loyal American's you could have saved, but didn't! Was it incompetence or were you hiding something else?
No Barry, they were not a “bump in the road” but 2 loyal American’s you could have saved, but didn’t! Was it incompetence or were you hiding something else?

I knew he was lying when I saw his lips move!

After listening to Obama’s speech today, and a brief encounter with two Obama worshiper’s, I decided to share the exchange, then add information on how to reach Obama and Reid, and tell them we are on to them, and it is blood on their hands this time! The republicans did all they could to keep the government open. It is the dems that caused this. If the rich corporations can get a one year extension, why can’t the little guy? If congress and their staffs can get financial consideration (because they cannot afford the Obama Un-affordable Health Care act) then how does Obama and his minions figure the average American with his $30,000 a year income can afford it? Those of you that are deluded into thinking Obama care is FREE, WAKE UP!

“You can live in the past if you wish, Richard and Catherine, but that doesn’t help us in the present! To address your incorrect history: Reagan saved the country from a disasterous Jimmy Carter presidency! Clinton’s so called”economic miracle” only happened because republicans Gingrich and Hastert controlled the House of Representatives while he was president. If the dems controlled it at that time, “our current day of disaster” would have come about much sooner. Yes, Bush did his share of screw-ups-but remember until the dems took over congress in January 2007 unemployment and most other indicators were doing quit well!

“Now, to the present: If everyone reading this wants government intrusion into the most personal part of living, do nothing! If you want to stop the UN-affordable Health care act, (called ObamaScare by many) you better write the White House and Harry Reed (LOL) in the Senate telling them, “Give the American people the same extension you gave the rich, billionaire Obama supporters! Also, if the overpaid, princes and princess bums in the beltway of DC can get major discounts & considerations on the cost of ObamaScare, why can’t the little guy?”

On this one the republicans are right, and you, Pres. Barry Soertero Obama are WRONG, Wrong, Wrong!

For an idea starter (use your own words) here is what we sent the clowns in Washington:
“Why can’t you listen to the people and the republicans and give the little guy the same extension
and financial considerations you gave your RICH Billionaire friends, unions and Congressional people.”

How to find them: google The White House and you will follow the comment/contact us buttons and send an email!
Phone “comments” and leave a message 202/456-1111
If you want to speak to a person 202/456-1414
Write: The White House
Pres. Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500 They want you to include an email address if you have one.

Each senator has his own method of contact on line. Harry Reid can be emailed at http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Phone Sen. Reid at 202/224-3542

I’ve contacted my two senators telling them to support the House of Representatives, Ted Cruz (202-224-5922), Rand Paul (202-224-4343), Mike Lee (202-224-5444), Marco Rubio (202-224-3041) and the other sane republicans trying to “save the nation from the pits of socialism.” You might want to call and thank these four wonderful “warriors for the people of America!” (If you disagree with Rubio on immigration, it’s a good chance to tell him, after the praise for standing up against the UN-affordable Health Care Act.)

The only value in looking back in history is to avoid making the same mistakes. Currently, it appears the repubs are leaning that lesson, and the dems are ignoring it! If you don’t believe me look at the cities and states run by democrats over the last 20 years, compared to the well run cities and states run by republican governors. Why hasn’t Washington learned socialism doesn’t work?

Back to the present.  I’ve been on medicare for some time now, but the last time I was employed I believe the cost of insurance for my family of four was about what the Obama plan is going to be for an individual.  In case you haven’t had a chance to see how much it will cost you if you are under 65, take a look at this chart and article:

The 50 States of Obamacare

MarketWatchBy Jen Wieczner | MarketWatch – 19 hours ago

  • A man is silhouetted behind a sign at an Affordable Care Act outreach event hosted by Planned Parenthood for the Latino community in Los Angeles, California September 28, 2013. Enrollment for the Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as Obamacare, begins next week on October 1. REUTERS/Jonathan Alcorn (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS HEALTH SOCIETY)

    Reuters/REUTERS – A man is silhouetted behind a sign at an Affordable Care Act outreach event hosted by Planned Parenthood for the Latino community in Los Angeles, California September 28, 2013. Enrollment …more 

 

Obamacare may be a national health law, but it has a different price tag in each state.

Americans under age 65 who buy insurance through the new health exchanges starting Oct. 1 will pay the most in Wyoming and the least in Minnesota, according to data released Wednesday by the Department of Health and Human Services officials.

The report analyzed rates in 47 states and Washington, D.C., including those already released by states running their own exchanges, as well as prices in 36 states where the federal government is running the marketplace. Hawaii, Kentucky and Massachusetts have yet to disclose their rates.

Minnesota has the lowest unsubsidized prices—and is the only state where middle-tier “silver” plans come in at under $200 a month. Monthly premiums for the state’s cheapest “bronze” plan (the lowest tier of coverage) average $144. In Wyoming, meanwhile, the cheapest bronze plans average $425, and silver plans start at $489. Across the country, bronze plans start on average at $249, and silver plans start at $310. (Among people eligible for subsidies, however, premiums will vary by income.)

Exchanges will also offer higher gold- and platinum-tier plans, but those will compete less on price than on quality, insurance consultants say. And government officials say 56% of the currently uninsured will be able to pay $100 or less per month after factoring in federal subsidies.

Excluding subsidies, a comparison of the premiums to the Congressional Budget Office’s earlier projections of $392 per month for the second-cheapest silver plan (on which government subsidies are based) shows that on average plans are costing 16% less. Indeed, the average price of the plan in Minnesota is only $192, or less than half of the projected amount. But the monthly cost is higher than the $392 estimate in seven states, topping $400 in Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Vermont and Wyoming. The latter’s $516 price tag on the second-lowest-priced silver plan is nearly 32% higher than the forecast (see chart below).

Proponents of the health-care law say the data show that this new insurance not only covers services individual plans currently don’t, but, in the words of Kevin Lucia, a research professor at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, “the premiums are definitely coming out more reasonably than anyone thought.”

Prices will still vary significantly by age, though. The HHS report is based on average costs for a 27-year-old, which are lower than what older people will pay. The overall state averages include everyone under 65, so younger Americans will likely pay less. In Oklahoma, for example, average monthly premiums for the lowest-cost bronze plan is only $114 for a 27-year-old, but the state average for the same plan is $60 more.

In general, states where more insurers are competing have lower rates, says Gary Cohen, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. States with average premiums in the lowest quartile had an average of eight insurance companies participating, while states with average premiums in the highest quartile only had three, according to the HHS report.

Exchanges in states with few insurers participating tend to be the most expensive. For example, Wyoming, the most expensive, and Alaska, the second-most expensive, each have just two insurance carriers competing for customers. New Jersey, which has four competing carriers, has prices slightly lower, followed by Delaware and South Dakota, where three insurance companies are participating in each state.

“The more vendors that are competing, the lower the rates are going to be,” says John Haslinger, vice president of ADP Strategic Advisory Services. But rates could also be higher in certain regions, he adds, because those areas have more people with pre-existing conditions and health risks, which in turn could deter insurers from competing.

Weighted average premiums in 48 states

 

 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

* New York premiums are the same for all ages.
** Vermont premiums are the same for all ages.

NOTE: Premiums shown above are a weighted average of the lowest-cost silver plan, the second lowest cost silver plan, and the lowest cost bronze plan in each rating area within the 36 Supported State-based Marketplaces, State Partnership Marketplaces and Federally Facilitated Marketplaces as of Sept. 18, as well as 12 State-based Marketplaces. The rating area weights are constructed based on county-level population under the age of 65. For State-based Marketplaces, premiums are a weighted average across all rating areas for California and New York, and are for the entire state in Rhode Island and Vermont and in D.C. For the remaining states, premiums are for the following rating areas: Denver, Colo.; Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, Conn.; Baltimore, Md.; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn.; Las Vegas, Nev.; Portland, Ore.; and Seattle, Wash.  Age weighting for all states is based on expected age distribution in the marketplaces, estimated by the RAND Corporation.

How to Survive ObamaScare-The Making Health Care Unaffordable Act!

I I find it funny when I hear people praise ObamaSCare!  They actually think it not going to cost anything.  Too bad Americans just take as gospel what they hear and read in the media.  The book below was very interesting, and explained some of my misconceptions, but
opened my eyes to the real destructive force of ObamaSCare.  Keep in mind, we are only starting to pay for this monstrosity, and in 2014 will start pay much more of the costs.  By 2020, no one will be able to afford it, if we don’t stop it NOW!
My brother told me in order to keep his wife on his insurance where he works, it is going to cost him an additional $800 this year. What will it be in 2014, when we really start paying for this terrible bill that no one “read until it was passed!”
Read the article about CVS, then the letter below that from “Newsmax.”

CVS Demonstrates Your Future Under Obamacare

March 25, 2013 by

CVS Demonstrates Your Future Under Obamacare

UPI FILE

The consequences of the big lie that is Obamacare and the U.S. deathcare system continue to come to light. From layoffs to hour reductions to business closures to companies being dragged into court over abortion and contraceptive coverage to doctor shortages to rising deathcare costs, Obamacare is a building disaster of rising premiums, doctor shortages and rationing death panels. Now, legal drug pusher CVS Caremark pharmacy is telling its employees they must report specific personal health information or pay an extra $600 per year for their health insurance coverage.

Among the measures employees are required to report are their weight, body fat, cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar levels. Employees must also be tobacco-free or enroll in an addiction program.

“These changes aren’t just about costs, they’re about us, each of us taking personal accountability for our own health,” said Lisa Bissacia, CVS senior vice president and chief human resources officer, in a recorded video released by the company.

The irony that a company that peddles to an unsuspecting public pharmaceuticals with a list of side effects as long as your arm and responsible for millions of adverse reaction events and 106,000 deaths annually would actually be concerned about their employees’ health is no doubt lost on Bissacia. On top of that, such a policy is an egregious violation of the employees’ rights.

Employment lawyer Richard Schramm told KPIX 5 News: “(CVS Executives) better get some pretty good legal counsel and decide whether your policy is really legal, because the policy as announced is not legal.”

Schramm told KPIX 5 the company is trying to tell employees what they can and can’t do on their off time.

“If we granted that right to employers, employers could tell employees who to date, who to see, what kinds of foods to eat, what to drink, all kinds of behavior off site could be controlled. And that’s absolutely not the law in California,” he said. Nor anywhere else, except maybe Florida.

“The approach they’re taking is based on the assumption that somehow these people need a whip, they need to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy,” Patient Privacy Rights founder Deborah Peel, M.D., told ABC News.

For the company’s many low-wage in-store employees, it’s essentially blackmail. There’s no way they can absorb an additional $50 per month increase in premiums, so they’ll have to comply.

And what will CVS do with the information? Not to worry; CVS won’t have access to the personal information. It will be given to WebMD.

And therein lies another rub. WebMD is a major propaganda arm of Big Pharma, and Big Pharma and the health insurance cartel wrote the Obamacare law. Drug criminal Eli Lilly was an original investor of WebMD. Eli Lilly has repeatedly been cited, fined and successfully sued for illegal and deceptive marketing, covering up the harmful effects of its drugs and buying the influence of doctors and regulatory agencies (as have all the major drug manufacturers).

WebMD uses subliminal sales tactics to peddle drugs, including harmful psychotropics, according to research by OpEdNews.com.

Lilly is not the only pharma company receiving unmarked product placement on WebMD.

Last summer, a video featured a woman patient confessing she was fearful of life while a voice over said she needed treatment for “general anxiety disorder” and the camera showed bottles of Forest Pharmaceuticals’ antidepressant Lexapro moving down the manufacturer’s assembly line. Get it? No disclaimer on the video or “sponsored content” appeared.

Another unsponsored WebMD video last summer urged people on antidepressants to remain on their therapy “despite side effects” and a third suggested women concerned about cancer, heart attack and stroke risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy should continue their treatment at lowered doses. Hang in there, valued customers.

Also on WebMD is a “depression test.” The test is rigged and the questions framed to elicit “yes” answers to all the questions. But even after answering “no” to all the questions, you are told, “You may be at risk for major depression.” So everyone taking the test is depressed, according to test sponsor Eli Lilly.

As Joseph Mercola, M.D., writes on his site, WebMD and its subsidiaries claim to be independent, but how independent and objective can a company be with its health recommendations when one of its major investors is a drug company?

For example, (WebMD subsidiary) drugs.com has the following statement at the bottom of every web page:

“Drugs.com provides free, accurate and independent advice on more than 24,000 prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines & natural products.”

And yet drugs.com is owned by WebMD, which has close ties to Big Pharma, and recommends drugs for their advertisers and pharmaceutical partners…

Also counted among its financial backers are producers of harmful processed foods — the type that contain artificial “fruits” that can be, according to the Food and Drug Administration, peddled as fruits. Curiously, or maybe not, there is no mention of natural alternatives and supplements. So much for preaching a healthy lifestyle.

WebMD also has a partnership with the FDA, the first-ever public-private partnership for the agency. Why? To be the agency’s major propaganda arm. WebMD and its subsidiaries are four of the top 10 most-visited health information sites on the Internet.

WebMD’s own announcement stated:

The partnership will enhance the FDA’s ability to get crucial information to the American public, FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, MD, said in a news conference.

… “WebMD has been a leader with regard to innovation in the use of the web as a form of communication and service to the public,” von Eschenbach said. “What we will do by virtue of this partnership … is to really be able to present online … content material we at FDA feel is extremely important for consumers to be aware of as they are making critically important decisions for themselves and for their families about their health and the products that they use to ensure their health.”

Of course, the FDA is co-opted and owned by Big Pharma and regularly provides cover for the pharmaceutical companies to peddle drugs with harmful side effects — sometimes for a period of years — until the lawsuits mount to such an extent that the agency is forced to require them be pulled from the market. The drug manufacturers then pay a big fine and/or settlement and move on to the next case, raking in billions of dollars in the meantime on drugs that treat symptoms and create more diseases in a never-ending cycle.

Now, back to WebMD and how it might use the information obtained on CVS’s 161,500 employees.

According to WebMD’s privacy policy, it won’t share any of the information it has on you, with the following exceptions:

  • To comply with legal requirements, such as a law, regulation, search warrant, subpoena, or court order;
  • To our vendors and suppliers in the course of their provision of products or services to WebMD;
  • In the event of a corporate change in control resulting from, for example, a merger, a sale of assets, or bankruptcy; or
  • In special cases, such as in response to a physical threat to you or others.

So CVS employees can expect their personal information to be shared far and wide. There can be no expectation of privacy and the data can be used by anyone — government included.

With government running healthcare, expect programs like this to expand and the information to be used to force behavior modifications for everyone forced to buy into Obamacare.

But look on the bright side. Nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg could head the new Federal Agency of Behavior Modification. Telling people how to live their lives seems right up his alley. He’ll be available come November.

Newsmax.co​m (newsmax@reply.newsmax.com)

Newsletters

To: ljiljana_battista@hotmail.com
Picture of Newsmax.com
newsmax
Dear Newsmax Reader,ObamaCare is slamming into full effect — and now people are mad as heck.

In fact, a recent Congressional report predicts your insurance premiums could climb by more than 200 percent very soon!

Well, this weekend some 60 million Americans will read Parade magazine with their Sunday newspaper — and our ad for the best-selling new book the ObamaCare Survival Guide will be there!

The ad in Parade will reveal some of the grisly details about ObamaCare.

And it also tells Americans how they can beat ObamaCare and make their own healthcare work!

Considering the law and regulations now total over 20,000 pages, few know anything about it.

The Parade ad features the ObamaCare Survival Guide — the number 1 best-selling book that rips the lid off the new law and tells you how to protect yourself and your family.

We thought you’d enjoy seeing this powerful new ad in Parade — to do so — Go Here Now.

Or, if you want to get your special copy of the ObamaCare Survival Guide for just $4.95 — a savings of $15 — simply Go Here Now.



Are You Prepared for ObamaCare?

With more than 20,000 pages of provisions and regulations, ObamaCare will cause a massive upheaval to your healthcare — affecting your insurance plan, Medicare, your doctor, your business — with stunning requirements, new taxes, fees and even fines.

It’s a radical program — and many experts now say you could lose your doctor.

How do you survive ObamaCare?

The ObamaCare Survival Guide is the first and best guide to help you protect yourself.

It’s already sold more than 250,000 copies as Americans everywhere are turning to this book to help them navigate this complex and confusing law.

The ObamaCare Survival Guide is written in plain English – detailed yet easy to understand. And at just 229 pages, it’s chock-full of the practical information that you need right now.

It’s filled with tips, loopholes and strategies you need to survive this new law.

Dick Morris, the TV and political analyst, says, “If you really want to find out how ObamaCare affects you, your family, your business, there is just one book to read — the ObamaCare Survival Guide.”

He adds: “You have heard people say a book is a ‘must-read’ – this book is the real thing, you really must read it to find out what the ObamaCare law is all about.”

Michael Reagan, the famous commentator and son of President Reagan, says, “It’s a powerful guide. I was amazed that so much of the information in this book has yet to be reported.”

Business mogul Donald Trump also endorsed the book, saying, “The ObamaCare Survival Guide is terrific. It lays out the truth about ObamaCare. A must-read for anyone who is worried about getting good healthcare for themselves or their employees.”

At Newsmax we are offering our readers this book at an incredible price.

With our Special Offer you’ll pay just $4.95 for the book and $3.95 for shipping — saving more than $10 — plus you’ll receive two other important publications.

We urge you to take advantage of this offer — Go Here Now.

Check out the Parade magazine ad for the ObamaCare Survival GuideGo Here Now.

Thank you.

Newsmax.com

OBAMA-SCare! We are in for it Now! Have a Merry Christmas anyway!

Comments about the Health Cost Increases and Lessening of Medical Services act I call Obama-SCare will follow. First,
We wanted to tell everyone HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND WONDERFUL NEW YEAR!
2012 was a very busy year with the election and all that came with it.  We are so happy it is all over with!
Here is a parting thought for the 2012 election: It is meant to be funny, so please LOL!
The election is over and your guy won!
Let’s stay friends and have a lot of fun!
If we forget the past we will show class!
So, I’m going to be hugging my GOP elephant,
While you  kiss your democrat ass!

After 30 plus years in the alternative health field, I came across this interesting portal that may contain something
of interest for you.  Consider it a present, if you have something that can be helped by one of the 100 listed conditions. Here is the link http://tinyurl.com/d6rmb4q

Here is the advertisement that lead me to the portal:
“Fix Your health problem in 2013! Having a stickler of a health problem? No matter what you do, your KNEES still ache; the TINNITUS in your ears drives you crazy! If you have any health problem from GALL BLADDER to gall stones; SKIN TAGS and MOLES to INDIGESTION, even excessive sweating can be helped! These and many more conditions are solved with our low cost programs. Fix fever blisters/COLD SORES, aid weight loss to 6-PACK ABS! Fix it easily if you Know where to look! See our low cost programs priced in the $20 to $30 range! Find them at our portal with 100 conditions listed that will FIX most of WHAT AILS YOU! For your problem Go look at http://tinyurl.com/d6rmb4q
We may receive compensation if products are purchased.
This is an advertisement.
Results will widely vary

By the way, sometimes I get emails from people that say they don’t know me.  When that happens I delete them immediately! I may have picked you up from my Vietnam blog or my political blog-If you do not want to hear from me again, please put “Remove” in the subject line and send it back. I will remove you.

The Battista’s
We thank God for the Blessings we have; and the blessings we are receiving!
We thank God, for everything!

Below is an advertisement by Newsmax, but it said everything I wanted to comment about!  I do not receive any commission if you buy the book, but it is vital we know how to protect ourselves from this 2700 page monster that is about to devour the USA and all of the citizens in it.

Warning: Only 9 days remain until new provisions of ObamaCare take effect.

With these massive changes coming under ObamaCare, one thing is certain, your healthcare costs will go higher, even as you see fewer doctors, get fewer choices, and have access to fewer medical services.

Some people say ObamaSCare is a government takeover of our healthcare system…

But more accurately it’s a government overhaul of 17% of our economy, with thousands of new provisions, regulations, taxes, fees, and penalties.

It’s not an overstatement to say that healthcare will change for every single person in America!

Most people have no idea that there is a new 40% tax on some healthcare plans or that the “Medicaid Parity Rule” will hurt seniors on Medicare. There are hundreds of other changes to how your healthcare will be defined and delivered.

Fortunately, there’s help to wade through the law and massive regulations . . .

Newsmax wants you to be fully informed so you can not only survive ObamaCare, but thrive under its new rules, mandates, and regulations.

Protect yourself and your family.

Discover the secrets to surviving ObamaCare within the next 3-minutes. Go here now!

A new guide reveals the full truth about the 2,700-plus pages of ObamaCare. It reveals the secrets and loopholes in the new law.

We’re only 9 days away so act today … Hurry — Get Prepared Here.