Western Journalism reported: The nation’s first Muslim U.S. Representative, Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) was among eight members of the House arrested during an immigration rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
As park rangers hold senior citizens hostage at Yellowstone National Park and World War II veterans are threatened with arrest for trying to visit their memorial, it is telling that a pro-amnesty event was permitted on federally owned land. Still, when Democrat protesters began blocking traffic, authorities took the disruptive congressmen into custody.
Ellison, along with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and others face charges of “crowding, obstructing, and incommoding” for the stunt, which included sitting in the middle of a busy road near the U.S. Capitol.
In addition to the leftist legislators, a local union boss was also arrested at the scene.
According to Ellison, the criminal behavior was merely “civil disobedience” stemming from the fact that they feel illegal immigrants are being treated unfairly. In reality, of course, the only immigrants suffering under current law are those seeking to enter our country through the proper channels. Ellison and company want the criminal element to have a direct path to the front of the line.
This incident highlights many of the hypocrisies evident in today’s contentious political climate.
Perhaps most glaringly, the National Park Service, which has attempted to shut down even privately-funded and state-owned locations during the federal shutdown, was perfectly willing to allow a group of amnesty proponents to spend the day on the National Mall.
The Obama regime has been called out on multiple occasions for mandating the the effects of this shutdown be as painful and widespread as possible. When the coveted illegal immigrant population — widely viewed by the left as potential Democrat voters — would be inconvenienced, however, the government rolls out the red carpet to welcome them.
A faint silver lining is found in the fact that a number of prominent leftists now face criminal charges. In the eyes of their dedicated constituents, however, these arrests will only increase their cult status.
This article by Walid Shoebat, is a long read but well worth the time. Shoebat uncovers and exposes the Obama administration ties to the Benghazi attack, along with Egypt’s role.
This is the ultimate source on how Benghazi went down on September 11, 2012. Please read, share, and give your feedback at the bottom of the article or on our Facebook page.
IRONCLAD report by Walid Shoebat: A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12. Those who attempt to discredit this document run into trouble when it is coupled with real-time video we uncovered on 9/13/12. In that video, gunmen at the scene of the attack can be heard declaring that they were sent by Mursi.
After weeks of attempting to push the narrative that a video was responsible, the Obama administration ultimately had to concede that the attacks in Benghazi were terrorist in nature. A few months after 9/11/12, the top lawyer for the Pentagon stated that the war on terror should be waged by “law enforcement and intelligence agencies”.
Based on the Obama administration’s standard, the Benghazi attacks should be treated as a crime instead of as an act of war. Therefore, let us bring forth the evidence, which implicates the leader of a nation state (Egypt) in the attack and warrants a grand jury (House of Representatives) investigation to decide if administration officials should be indicted (impeached).
Since we’re deciding who to indict, we must look at evidence of involvement in the attack. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood President – Mohammed Mursi – is a good place to start. Our first two exhibits are both damning but when taken together, may just constitute a ‘smoking gun’. EXHIBIT A is a video shot from a cell phone at the scene of the attacks. In this video, gunmen are seen running toward the camera, toward other gunmen. At one point – in Arabic which we have confirmed – one approaching gunman says, “Don’t Shoot us! We were sent by Mursi!”. Even though the video is in Arabic, you can discern the word “Mursi”.
Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) has now been brought forward by credible Arabic translator Raymond Ibrahim. This document discusses the confessions of six members of an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell who were arrested and found to be involved in the Benghazi attacks. Ibrahim reported the following about this document:
It discusses the preliminary findings of the investigation, specifically concerning an “Egyptian cell” which was involved in the consulate attack. “Based on confessions derived from some of those arrested at the scene” six people, “all of them Egyptians” from the jihad group Ansar al-Sharia (“Supporters of Islamic Law), were arrested.
According to the report, during interrogations, these Egyptian jihadi cell members “confessed to very serious and important information concerning the financial sources of the group and the planners of the event and the storming and burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi…. And among the more prominent figures whose names were mentioned by cell members during confessions were: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi…
Upon doing even further analysis of this document, we found that it aligned with even more evidence we uncovered back in September.
For example, in addition to mentioning Egypt, Mursi, and Ansar al-Sharia, the document also mentions Al-Nas TV and Dar Al-Hekma, both of which we raised red flags about in the days and weeks after the Benghazi attacks.
Let’s consider the timeline of events leading up to and including 9/11/12:
Thursday, September 6th: According to the Wall Street Journal, this was the day that the 14-minute Innocence of Muslims video trailer was sent to “journalists around the world”. Some of the video was translated into Arabic.
Friday, September 7th: Egypt’s Wisam Abdul Waris of Dar Al-Hekma (yes, the same Dar Al-Hekma identified in the Libyan Intelligence document) publicly denounces Innocence of Muslims. He does so while calling for the criminalization of any defamation of Islam, even in non-Muslim countries.
Saturday, September 8th: Al-Nas (yes, the same Al-Nas identified in the Libyan Intelligence document) talk show host Khalid Abdallah, who is sympathetic to the more fundamentalist, Salafi Muslims, interviewed a Muslim activist named Mohammad Hamdy and aired translated portions of the Innocence of Muslims video that for weeks, Obama administration officials attempted to blame for the Benghazi attacks. Reuters reported days later that the airing of these clips from the video was “the flashpoint” for the protests in Cairo and attacks in Benghazi. Here is the video of the exchange. Portions of the Innocence of Muslims video are aired beginning at the 5:46 mark:
Sunday, September 9th: An interview with Wisam Abdul Waris is uploaded to YouTube. A translated excerpt of what Waris said is beneath the video:
“We have moved to review with Mr. Rifai all the legal procedures today by which we created The Voice of Wisdom Coalition (I’itilaf Sawt al-Hekma); it will hold accountable everyone who insults Islam locally and internationally, in accordance with every country’s laws. We all know the problems Yasser Al-Habib had in London and after that in Berlin… in Germany, an extremist group was allowed to publicize cartoons that insult the prophet in front of the Salafist Mosque in Berlin, through a legal decision. So what we did was to ask Sharabi Mahmoud to reject this legal decision on behalf of the Egyptian people who are Muslim; for this reason, we created this coalition. We also made an official request from the Church in Egypt to issue a public announcement, to state it has nothing to do with this deed.”
At this point, let’s introduce the YouTube channel of Sam Bacile. It is later learned that Bacile is actually Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the Innocence of Muslims video. At one time, two videos appeared on the Feed tab of Bacile’s channel. Sometime between September 9th – 11th, the administrator commented on the Waris video.
About one week earlier, Bacile identified the other video that appeared on his channel as one of his favorites; it is a video of Nader Bakkar, the official spokesman of the Salafist Nour Party. Bakkar and Waris joined forces in the effort expressed by Waris on September 7th. Here is a screenshot:
Also at one time, Bacile had one video “Like”. It’s curious that this video featured an interview with a British female convert to Islam:
Though the video is no longer associated with the Sam Bacile YouTube channel, it is still posted:
The New York Times reported that the Sam Bacile YouTube account was actually opened and maintained by Bakoula’s son, Abanob Nakoula.
Monday, September 10th: One day prior to the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens – the highest ranking State Department official in Libya – arrives in Benghazi from Tripoli and is due to return to Tripoli on the 14th. Despite warnings and previous attacks, the U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC) in Benghazi was woefully insecure and not equipped to protect Stevens.
As an aside, the State Department didn’t just drop Stevens inside a compound that wasn’t sufficiently secured. It hired the February 17th Martyrs Brigade to provide security. The F17MB has allegiances to both Al-Qaeda and one of the groups identified in that Libyan Intelligence document mentioned earlier.
Via Newsmax:
Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.
An Interim Progress Report released by the House Oversight Committee stated the following about F17MB:
Numerous reports have indicated that the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.
It should be noted that Almogaz News reported that Ansar Al-Sharia of Egypt is a “Salafist group” (keep in mind that Al-Nas is also Salafist). The mission of Ansar al-Sharia – according to Almogaz – is to “release Islamist prisoners”.
Tuesday, September 11th: The itinerary for Ambassador Stevens says that he is to meet with F7MB at 11:00am but next to this are the handwritten words, “Another day.”
The itinerary was drafted on September 8th, which is also the same day that F7MB made it known they would be pulling back on support:
…on September 8, 2012, just days before Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade told State Department officials that the group would no longer support U.S. movements in the city, including the Ambassador’s visit.
The attack on the SMC is launched later that evening. Sean Smith is killed in the attack but the body of Christopher Stevens could not be located and was later removed by Libyans and taken to a hospital under the control of Ansar al-Sharia, according to the testimony of Gregory Hicks, who became the highest-ranking State Department official in Libya after Stevens passed away.
At the Washington Free Beacon, (EXHIBIT B-1) Bill Gertz reported on the shocking but unconfirmed claim made by an al-Qaeda terrorist named Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin:
An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi went bad.
While the charge that Stevens was killed by lethal injection is unsubstantiated, evidence that the attack on the Benghazi SMC was about kidnapping, not murder, is corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence. If true, what would be the motive behind the kidnapping of the top State Department official in Libya?
Keep reading.
That the attack was planned and involved foreigners (Egyptians) corroborates what Libyan President Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf told CBS News’ Bob Scheiffer on Face the Nation on Sunday, September 16th (EXHIBIT C):
BOB SCHIEFFER: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that– is that what you are telling us?
MOHAMED YOUSEF EL-MAGARIAF: It was planned– definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who– who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their– since their arrival.
Relative to Mursi’s alleged involvement, El-Magariaf provided only circumstantial evidence by identifying attackers as being “foreigners” but in retrospect, the Libyan president’s claims that day are corroborated by the Libyan Intelligence document and the real-time video.
Also on September 16, 2012, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows and asserted the attack was the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video. Here are quotes from Rice’s appearance on ABC This Week, during which she said the following (EXHIBIT D):
“What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”
At a minimum, Rice was directing attention away from Mursi’s involvement with this demonstrably false statement. A short time later, she went as far as directly defending Mursi:
“President Obama picked up the phone and talked to President Mursi in Egypt and as soon as he did that, the security provided to our personnel and our embassies dramatically increased… President Mursi has been out repeatedly and said that he condemns this violence. He’s called off… and his people have called off any further demonstrations and have made very clear, that this has to stop.”
Rice attempted to leave viewers with two impressions, one demonstrably false and the other belied by hard evidence:
1. A video was responsible
2. Mursi was not involved
At this point, we’d like to introduce an exchange between House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy and Gregory Hicks, a whistleblower and the top-ranking State Department official in Libya once Ambassador Stevens was murdered (EXHIBIT E). This entire exchange is being introduced as evidence but we ask you, the Grand Jury, to pay particularly close attention at the 1:45 mark, when Gowdy introduces the name Beth Jones and reads from an email she sent to several State Department officials on September 12th, one day after the attack.
In her email, Jones wrote the following:
“I spoke to the Libyan Ambassador… When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks – Ansar al-Sharia – is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.”
On September 12th, Jones corroborated the claims made in the Libyan Intelligence document (EXHIBIT B) that an Egyptian Ansar al-Sharia cell was involved in the attacks, which corroborates the real-time video (EXHIBIT A). Yet, four days later – after this reality must have been further demonstrated, Rice’s statements only served to cover-up the involvement of Mursi and Ansar al-Sharia by extension.
Moreover, Hicks charged that by contradicting the Libyan president, Rice seriously chilled the willingness of the Libyan government to allow FBI Investigators access to what the Obama administration viewed as a crime scene. As such, the crime scene was contaminated and Rice’s lies may constitute an obstruction of justice charge.
The first indications that the Obama administration would decide to point to the video as being responsible for the Benghazi attacks appeared to come soon after it was learned that Sean Smith had been killed. There is cause to believe that news of Smith’s death may have precipitated the decision to point to the video. A Press Release (EXHIBIT F) bearing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s name was released some time prior to 10:42pm EST that night. This is known because an AP article (EXHIBIT G) published at that time made reference to Clinton’s statement as well as to Smith’s death:
In the days after September 11th, President Mursi seemed to adopt the narrative of the Obama administration relative to the video being responsible for causing them. He did so, ironically enough, at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in New York City on September 25th (EXHIBIT H)
EXHIBITS I and J are two video excerpts from President Obama’s speech at the United Nations on September 25th, the same day that Mursi spoke at the CGI. During the speech, Obama echoes what Rice said about his defense of Mursi. Yet, Obama defended him publicly two weeks later, even after intelligence about Mursi’s role had been readily available.
Obama again identifies the video as being responsible for the attack:
Ever since assuming the office of President on June 30, 2012, Mursi has been extremely clear about his strong desire to have the “Blind Sheikh” released. The Washington Post reported that Mursi “assumed office with a pledge to press the United States for Abdel Rahman’s release” and that al-Qaeda’s number one – Ayman al-Zawahiri – echoed the sentiment (EXHIBIT K).
Remember that Almogaz news report? In it, Ansar al-Sharia’s mission is described as being to “release Islamist prisoners”. This would indeed bolster the claims and suspicions of those who believe the mission in Benghazi on September 11th was to kidnap Stevens and trade him for the “Blind Sheikh”.
Fox News reported on July 3, 2012, that Mursi “proclaimed to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Tahir Square… that he will gain the release of Rahman” (EXHIBIT L).
In an interview between CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Mursi from January 7th of this year, Mursi doubled down on his support for the release of Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”) while making an appeal for sympathy for the mass murderer (EXHIBIT M):
While admitting his desire for the release of the “Blind Sheikh”, Mursi said that if release is not possible, increased visitation and freedom should be granted to Rahman. A letter attributed to Rahman appeared in an al-Qaeda’s Inspire magazine (EXHIBIT N). In an article published by The Hill, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) pointed to this letter in which the convicted terrorist is credited with ordering a bombing in western Egypt in 1997 that killed dozens of people. This demonstrated that the “Blind Sheikh” still has deadly tentacles.
On November 14, 2012, four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs (EXHIBIT O). During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the “Blind Sheikh”:
Again, consider the itinerary for Ambassador Stevens, who arrived in Benghazi on 9/10/12 and was scheduled to depart on 9/14/12 (EXHIBIT P). That the State Department’s top official in Libya would be sent to Benghazi one day before the anniversary of 9/11 is indeed vexing but that he would be sent to a location that was woefully unprotected and had been attacked with an I.E.D. that blew a large hole in the perimeter wall is beyond troubling. There had been several terrorist attacks on western installations as well prior to September 11th as chronicled in a letter (EXHIBIT Q) from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa to President Barack Obama.
The Obama administration knew of Ansar al-Sharia’s involvement in Benghazi as the attack was being carried out but stonewalled until ultimately having to concede to the truth. On September 15th, the day that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points were being scrubbed of any reference to Ansar al-Sharia, even the New York Times reported that the group was likely responsible.
Ansar al-Sharia is not solely a Libyan group, as has been reported by the New York Times. In truth, this terror group has branches from Egypt to Yemen to regions all across North Africa (Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, etc.) as reported by the Washington Institute.
Let’s return to the Innocence of Muslims video that the Obama administration tried desperately to blame for the attacks. Evidence that the video was part of this entire plot should not be dismissed.
Via the Washington Times:
The YouTube video that spawned a wave of violent protests across the Islamic world might be more than a crude exercise in anti-Muslim propaganda.
Walid Shoebat, a Middle East pundit and reformed terrorist, says there is reason to believe that the “Innocence of Muslims” video was a hoax designed to spark the huge outpouring of Muslim rage that it did.
You see, our own Walid Shoebat is the first cousin of Nakoula’s longtime partner in crime:
Shoebat grew up in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem in the Palestinian Arab territories. So did Eiad Salameh, a man Shoebat says is his cousin. Shoebat says Salameh was a partner in crime with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the YouTube video, which has acted as a fuse igniting an explosion of Muslim anger directed toward the West.
As we point out in the following report, Eiad is a Muslim fundamentalist who despises Coptic Christians. This begs one very simple question: Why would Eiad collaborate with a supposed Coptic Christian for a decade?
As the Washington Times report pointed out, after Nakoula was arrested in June of 2009 and later convicted on bank fraud charges, he was given a lighter sentence in exchange for his identifying Eiad as his group’s ringleader.
If the feds were truly interested in apprehending my cousin Eiad, why did they not take him when Canada offered him on a silver platter?
Via our September 24th report:
After years with credit card fraud, contraband, manufacturing false passports, embezzlements, Eiad was finally arrested, not in the United States— where he was allowed to operate right under the noses of the Feds while conducting his mischievous dealings—but in Canada of all places.
Eiad was finally locked up in January 2011.
At least this is what we thought.
I learned of this from a contact out of the (Canadian Peel Police) who was working with the Feds to extradite him to the United States.
The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took and were working with the Feds to extradite him to the United States.
As it turned out, U.S. authorities didn’t want Eiad…
The Los Angeles Police had been working on the case for years and wanted so much to send Eiad to prison.
Yet, even one of the police terrorism and drug specialists (who preferred to keep his name anonymous) stated that they couldn’t do much since every time they informed the FBI, they were ordered to stand down and not arrest Eiad.
Eiad must have been a big fish doing some very fishy projects for some very fishy people.
A contact of mine in Canada told me that the Feds in the U.S. preferred not to bring Eiad to the United States to face justice, but asked the Canadians to fly him to freedom in Palestine.
Perhaps the U.S. should do a little swapping of its own.
Nakoula for Eiad, perhaps?
Amazingly, on September 28, 2012, after evidence implicating Mursi in the attacks in Benghazi had become available, the Obama administration announced that it would be providing Mursi’s government with $450 Million, despite protestations from Congress. A New York Times article (EXHIBIT R) outlined the details of the aid package:
The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.
An act of war, which probable cause suggests, Mursi was involved in perpetrating against the United States in Benghazi, is not usually met with a multi-million dollar aid package.
However, if there were a deal between Obama administration officials and Mursi administration officials, to stage a kidnapping operation in which Stevens was captured and subsequently exchanged for the “Blind Sheikh”, which side would stand to lose more if the truth were to come out?
While still president-elect, Mursi attempted to satiate his base by pledging to have the “Blind Sheikh” freed; it was practically part of his platform. If there had been a deal that were made public, Mursi’s stock would most assuredly rise among his base. Conversely, if such a truth were to be made known, Obama would be finished.
This would grant Mursi significant leverage. Again, we take the opportunity to underscore that the Obama administration had to have known about the high probability of Mursi’s involvement in the attacks as it was cutting a check for $450 Million on September 28th, barely more than two weeks later.
Fast forward a couple of months later when the Obama administration sent four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt. This was done, in part, to honor a foreign aid package that had been drafted in 2010, when Hosni Mubarak was still president. This deal required the U.S. to send more than a dozen F-16′s and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt over the course of 2013. As a Fox News article (EXHIBIT S) points out, critics in Congress expressed opposition to honoring the agreement because Mursi was in power, though these objections did not include evidence implicating Mursi in the Benghazi attacks.
In March of 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Egypt would be receiving another $250 Million in aid from the Obama administration. This rankled more members of Congress, particularly Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who had served as the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. She was quoted in another Fox News article (EXHIBIT T) as saying:
“With sequestration forcing our nation to face billions of dollars in cuts across the government, it is unfathomable that the administration would send funds unconditionally to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government.”
We must emphasize that Ros-Lehtinen’s objections, though forceful, were not made on the basis of strong evidence implicating Mursi’s involvement in the Benghazi attacks.
Now, as the situation in Egypt has become increasingly more violent and tenuous, the Obama administration is sending 400 troops from the site of the 2009 Jihad attack at Fort Hood, TX that left 14 dead and 32 wounded, to Egypt on a “peacekeeping mission” according to a Fort Hood press release (EXHIBIT U).
The behavior of the Obama administration relative to its assistance to Mursi warrants further investigation into whether the Obama administration may be the victim of blackmail.
This leads to our next witness, former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus (EXHIBIT V). Evidence suggests that Petraeus may have been punished by the Obama administration when he did not sign on to the talking points that would ultimately be used by Ambassador Rice on September 16th. As references to Al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were being scrubbed from the talking points, Petraeus sent an email at 2:27 PM one day earlier in which he wrote, “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then…” (EXHIBIT W):
On November 7, 2012, one day after Barack Obama’s re-election, Petraeus’ boss – James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence – advises the White House that Petraeus may resign over an extra-marital affair being made public. It is subsequently learned that the FBI had known about the affair for months and that Attorney General Eric Holder had known about it for weeks. During an appearance on the Fox News Channel on November 13th, Washington Post writer Charles Krauthammer seemed convinced that Petraeus had been punished for not endorsing the talking points about Benghazi (EXHIBIT X):
Whereas it is demonstrable that the Obama administration was likely punitive in its treatment of David Petraeus when the C.I.A. Director didn’t sign off on the talking points, it is therefore alleged, based on factual and circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration may also be a victim of blackmail from the nation-state of Egypt and its Muslim Brotherhood President, Mohammed Mursi.
Pursuant to the premise that acts of terror must be treated as criminal acts, it is our view that this evidence is more than sufficient to convene a grand jury to indict Mursi and to draw up articles of impeachment for Obama administration officials.
Since the Clinton administration, a common refrain that has been heard – especially from the political left – is that terrorists must be treated as criminals and terrorist attacks should be treated as prosecutable crimes. A perfect example can be found in the case of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheikh”) who was successfully prosecuted and given a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
If the Benghazi attacks were prosecutable crimes, we suggest that a grand jury is long overdue.
In politics, that’s equivalent to articles of impeachment.
**CRITICAL UPDATES**
There are frequent updates to the article. Please visit ORIGINAL article by clicking the link below and scrolling to the bottom (click snapshot below):
TheBlaze reported: Supporters of President Barack Obama and his health care law were shocked to learn that their health care plans are being replaced with more expensive ones to comply with all the requirements of Obamacare.
Cindy Vinson, of San Jose, Calif., will reportedly pay $1,800 more each year for an individual policy. Additionally, Tom Waschura, of Portola Valley, Calif., will pay nearly $10,000 more for insurance to cover his family of four.
Both of the California residents “vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama,”according to the San Jose Mercury News. They also both anticipated their rates would go up, just not so drastically.
“Of course, I want people to have health care, I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally,” Vinson said.
Waschura said he was “laughing” at House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republicans until he got his new rates in the mail.
“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy,” he said.
“Both Vinson and Waschura have adjusted gross incomes greater than four times the federal poverty level — the cutoff for a tax credit,” the report adds.
Even so, Waschura says he is still not against Obamacare, despite the $10,000 yearly increase in his insurance plan.
“It’s just the initial shock. I’m holding out hope that there will be a correction over a handful of years,” he said.
Not all of the sticker shock can be blamed on Obamacare.
Health care inflation costs routinely increase at least 4 percent annually, said Ken Wood, a senior adviser for Covered California. Those increases, he noted, are due to an aging population and the rising costs of new medical technology and drugs, among other factors.
But Wood, Wu and others also said premiums will rise as a result of people getting better insurance under the new law, which requires most Americans, with few exceptions, to buy health insurance no later than March 31, or pay a minimum $95 annual penalty.
The law’s intent is to cover people who are now uninsured by making insurance accessible to everybody. But that means rates will rise for many because sick and healthy people will now be charged the same premium.
American investment broker, businessman, author, and financial commentator Peter Schiff warns us that we are in worse shape now economically than we were just before the 2008 financial crisis, which we still have yet to recover from.
King Obama okay’d the Illegal march in Washington D.C., but fails our vets from seeing their own memorial. This about sums up Obama’s presidency, a disgrace.
The Daily Caller reported: The National Park Service is allowing an Oct. 8 pro-immigration rally on the national mall, even as it posts pickets and barriers to bar Americans from visiting their open-air memorials.
“They’re going to be allowed to go [ahead] because it is a First Amendment activity,” Shannon Maurer, a spokeswoman for the “March for Immigrant Dignity and Respect,” told The Daily Caller.
“They allowed us to have it because it is part of the First Amendment of the constitution,” said Susana Flores, a spokeswoman for CASA in Action, which is organizing the rally. ”We’re going to have a stage and microphones,” plus a stand for TV cameras, she said.
The mall is currently marked as closed, and law enforcement officials have have been deployed to picket open-air monuments to keep Americans off their own land.
Critics quickly pounced on what they see as special treatment for the administration’s allies.
“What this means is that the administration is sending a clear message that it’s OK to barricade elderly veterans out of their memorials, but illegal immigrants have to be accommodated no matter what,” Mark Krikorian, director of the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Caller.
“It’s hard to justify closing off open areas [such as the World War II memorial], but to allow a major setup with equipment, electronics and security in a closed area is a little outrageous,” said Krikorian.
Administration officials say a rewrite of the nation’s immigration laws remains a very high priority. Analysts say a pending Senate bill would double immigration and allow 33 million immigrants into the country during the next decade.
The Oct. 8 turnout is uncertain, partly because a nationwide series of Oct. 5 marches showed a low turnout. ”We don’t have a number … [maybe] tens of thousands,” for the Oct. 8 event, Flores said.
On Oct. 5, progressive and union groups organized rallies in 40 states, but fewer than 50,000 people turned out, far below their goal of only 130,000 marchers.
Roughly 3,000 people turned out in New York, most of whom were “Asian, Hispanic and Arab,” according to the AFP news agency. That’s less than one percent of the estimated 500,000 illegals in New York, said AFP.
One of the organizers, Linda Sarsour, taunted immigration opponents on Twitter. “This is what America looks like,” she said.
“Several hundred” people turned out in Alabama, “several thousand” people appeared at an event in San Diego, only a short drive from the Mexican border, and only 1,000 people marched in Boston, said The New York Times.
However, the turnout was much larger than has been achieved by groups that want to reduce immigration.
The low turnout by immigration advocates highlights the leading role being played in the immigration debate by business executives, who are seeking a new wave of customers and workers to boost their revenues, said Krikorian.
Breitbart reported: After a long weekend of repairs, the Obamacare healthcare exchange website was ready for action…or not. On Monday night, Healthcare.gov was taken offline again to fix glitches. From 1 a.m. EDT, the Health and Human Services Department stated, the site would be offline for purposes of improving capacity. HHS did state that the site was better than it was before the weekend improvements, and said that it would be taken offline only during nonpeak hours.
HHS spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, “The work done to increase access to HealthCare.gov in light of the overwhelming demand is beginning to show results…Our work to expand the site’s capacity has led to more people successfully applying for and enrolling in affordable health coverage online, with wait times being shortened by approximately 50 percent since Friday.”
Given that wait times were essentially infinite for large portions of last week, that’s not too much of an improvement. But even as technical glitches get fixed, the Obamacare law itself needs big fixes – fixes it won’t get as President Obama intransigently stands by every jot and tittle of his eponymous policy.
TheBlaze reported: A recently-shut down Carl’s Jr. restaurant in Carrollton, Texas, currently has a sign posted outside that reads: “Closed by Obamacare.” After being tipped off by a reader, TheBlaze traveled to the location to confirm the sign’s authenticity.
It wasn’t immediately clear whether or not President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, which made its very bumpy debut earlier this week, actually forced the location to shut its doors. Attempts to call the phone number associated with the location only resulted in exchanges with an automated messaging system announcing the number is no longer in use.
It is entirely possible that the sign is more of a political statement than a statement of fact. However, TheBlaze is currently working to obtain more information about the sign and reason for the Carl’s Jr. location’s going out of business. We have reached out to the restaurant chain’s corporate office and this story will be updated should the company respond.
Carl’s Jr. CEO Andrew Puzder recently penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why he believes Obamacare can’t work:
The rising cost of insurance affects people whether they purchase insurance through their employers or an exchange, since both depend on private insurers. If insurance costs go up, taxpayers also may end up paying more to foot the bill for the higher cost of subsidized insurance. This is particularly concerning since the administration has announced that it will be unable to verify whether applicants for subsidies actually qualify for them. The subsidies are likely to be very popular.
The Obama administration seems to recognize the looming trouble and is urging professional sports organizations and parent groups to encourage young workers signing up for coverage. Maybe that will be effective. It’s certainly preferable to ill-advised attempts to postpone, and thus change, the law by fiat rather than by legislation. Maybe the administration will even do what it should have done in the first place: Take the time to develop a bipartisan, market-driven approach that might actually work.
And Obamacare didn’t get off to a good start this week either.
The Obama administration is taking down its health overhaul website for repairs this weekend. Even the very few that were able to get a health insurance quote faced lengthy wait times and high monthly premiums.
For example, Obama supporter Chad Henderson went through the Obamacare application process and discovered he would pay $175 per month under the president’s health care plan. He is a healthy 21-year-old male who earns $11,500. His monthly premium will be 18 percent of his yearly income if he decides to purchase the plan.
Many others encountered a screen that told them to wait, and they did, sometimes for hours. Refreshing the screen only sent them to the back of the line.
Quite a few got hung up trying to create security questions to protect their accounts. The drop-down menus providing the questions would not populate. As a result, consumers could not advance through the application process and learn if they were eligible for a tax credit to help pay premiums, much less pick a plan.
Some who did make it through were timed out because they took too long comparing plans.
At the end of the first day at most a handful of people had managed to successfully enroll through the federal site.
Conservative Angle Archives 
You must be logged in to post a comment.