Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Obama v. Putin: President Obama is ill-equipped to be Commander-in-Chief and is being outplayed by Putin (again)!

Posted: 04 Mar 2014 11:54 PM PST

Obama says its about lawyers, so where is Attorney General and the crusade to protect the civil rights of Afro-Russians?

If President Obama is literally correct – “I know President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody,” perhaps the United States would be better served by sending Attorney General Eric Holder with his set of lawyers and a different set of interpretations rather than Secretary of State John Kerry. Holder could always claim that he is upholding the civil rights of Black Russians (Afro-Russians) wherever they may be.

About that billion dollars …

Is this another instance of President Obama, like Presidents before him, trying to purchase a favorable statement and photo-op with taxpayer’s money for his own political interests. If so, there is nothing likely to be of great import coming from those who oppose President Putin. Are we to believe that the money will not be used to line the pockets of politicians and a few politically-connected corporations?

By the way, did anyone notice that Ukranians sold the two aircraft carriers they were given by Russia to the Chinese. One of which is a gambling casino and the other is China's first aircraft carrier.

Obama has already lost the game …

Consider what President Obama has said, “And as I indicated before, and something that I think has not been emphasized enough, they are currently scheduled to have elections in May.” With over a majority of ethnic Russians and Ukranian sympathizers voting, it appears that the electorate will vote in a government favorable to Vladimir Putin, make an arrangement for Putin to control the deep water port he desperately needs, and to make further “adjustments” as required. Provided that the election is relatively open, the United States cannot say anything to anybody about not respecting a free and open election.

What is really at play …

Not only is this an oil play, but it is a demographic play to produce more ethnic Russians to stem the declining birth rate in Russia.

Strategic forces?

Yes, Russia has nuclear weapons, but they are unlikely to use them on the United States. Their conventional forces are no match for the United States military and only their special operations people seem combat able and ready. Pretty much why America needs to keep a strong nuclear posture; in spite of President Obama trying to reduce America’s nuclear capabilities and make it more vulnerable to those who might be our enemies.

To read Obama’s remarks in context …

The White House -- Remarks by the President Announcing the FY2015 Budget

Q Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Mike.

Q Do you have response to President Putin’s press conference this morning? Is Chancellor Merkel right that he’s lost touch with reality? And have you spoken with him again personally?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t spoken to him since I spoke to him this past weekend. But obviously, me and my national security team have been watching events unfolding in Ukraine very closely. I met with them again today. As many of you know, John Kerry is in Kyiv [Kiev] as we speak, at my direction. He’s expressing our full support for the Ukrainian people.

Over the past several weeks, we’ve been working with our partners and with the IMF to build international support for a package that helps to stabilize Ukraine’s economy. And today we announced a significant package of our own to support Ukraine’s economy, and also to provide them with the technical assistance that they need. So it includes a planned loan guarantee package of $1 billion. It provides immediate technical expertise to Ukraine to repair its economy. And, importantly, it provides for assistance to help Ukraine plan for elections that are going to be coming up very soon.

As I said yesterday, it is important that Congress stand with us. I don’t doubt the bipartisan concern that’s been expressed by the situation in Ukraine. There is something immediately Congress can do to help us, and that is to help finance the economic package that can stabilize the economy in Ukraine, help to make sure that fair and free elections take place very soon, and as a consequence, helps to deescalate the crisis.

In the meantime, we’re consulting with our international allies across the board. Together, the international community has condemned Russia’s violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. We’ve condemned their intervention in Crimea. And we are calling for a de-escalation of the situation, and international monitors that can go into the country right away.

And, above all, we believe that the Ukrainian people should be able to decide their own future, which is why the world should be focused on helping them stabilize the situation economically and move towards the fair and free elections that are currently scheduled to take place in May.

There have been some reports that President Putin is pausing for a moment and reflecting on what’s happened. I think that we’ve all seen that -- from the perspective of the European Union, the United States, allies like Canada and Japan, and allies and friends and partners around the world -- there is a strong belief that Russia’s action is violating international law. I know President Putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but I don’t think that’s fooling anybody.

I think everybody recognizes that although Russia has legitimate interests in what happens in a neighboring state, that does not give it the right to use force as a means of exerting influence inside of that state. We have said that if, in fact, there is any evidence out there that Russian speakers or Russian natives or Russian nationals are in any way being threatened, there are ways of dealing with that through international mechanisms. And we’re prepared to make sure that the rights of all Ukrainians are upheld. And, in fact, in conversations that we’ve had with the government in Kyiv, they have been more than willing to work with the international community and with Russia to provide such assurances.

So the fact that we are still seeing soldiers out of their barracks in Crimea is an indication to which what’s happening there is not based on actual concern for Russian nationals or Russian speakers inside of Ukraine, but is based on Russia seeking, through force, to exert influence on a neighboring country. That is not how international law is supposed to operate.

I would also note just the way that some of this has been reported, that there’s a suggestion somehow that the Russian actions have been clever strategically. I actually think that this has not been a sign of strength but rather is a reflection that countries near Russia have deep concerns and suspicions about this kind of meddling, and if anything, it will push many countries further away from Russia.

There is the ability for Ukraine to be a friend of the West’s and a friend of Russia’s as long as none of us are inside of Ukraine trying to meddle and intervene, certainly not militarily, with decisions that properly belong to the Ukrainian people. And that’s the principle that John Kerry is going to be speaking to during his visit. I’ll be making additional calls today to some of our key foreign partners, and I suspect I’ll be doing that all week and in through the weekend.

But as I indicated yesterday, the course of history is for people to want to be free to make their own decisions about their own futures. And the international community I think is unified in believing that it is not the role of an outside force -- where there’s been no evidence of serious violence, where there’s been no rationale under international law -- to intervene in people trying to determine their own destiny.

So we stand on the side of history that I think more and more people around the world deeply believe in -- the principle that a sovereign people, an independent people are able to make their own decisions about their own lives. And Mr. Putin can throw a lot of words out there, but the facts on the ground indicate that right now he’s not abiding by that principle. There is still the opportunity for Russia to do so, working with the international community to help stabilize the situation.

And we’ve sent a clear message that we are prepared to work with anybody if their genuine interest is making sure that Ukraine is able to govern itself. And as I indicated before, and something that I think has not been emphasized enough, they are currently scheduled to have elections in May. And everybody in the international community should be invested in making sure that the economic deterioration that’s happened in Ukraine stops, but also that these elections proceed in a fair and free way in which all Ukrainians, including Russian speakers inside of Ukraine, are able to express their choice of who should lead them.

And if we have a strong, robust, legitimate election, then there shouldn’t be any question as to whether the Ukrainian people govern themselves without the kinds of outside interference that we see Russia exerting.

All right, thank you very much, everybody.

I wonder if President Obama realizes that President Putin is not only smarter than he is, but is also a real leader able to get things done?

There is a reason the soldiers have no insignia and unit flashes. When President Putin announced that there are no Russian forces on the ground in Crimea, what do you want to bet that he took all of the 2,500 Russian Marines of the 801st Naval Infantry Brigade and a portion of the Black Sea Fleet off Russia’s military roll and assigned them to a new country to be known as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea? All legal according to international law. Note: there are border checkpoints being established and I would not be surprised if there is a request for recognition at the United Nations, elections to be held democratically in the near future.

Bottom line …

President Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats have already lost the battle over the Ukraine to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. In 2008, even Sarah Palin and John McCain knew of the Russian maneuvering on the Ukrainian front and warned President Obama.

The sad fact is that we have an inexperienced, incompetent, and inept non-leader in the White House. We have Presidential Advisers who are in love with the idea of socialism and want to weaken the United States from within to promote their political agenda. A transformation of America into just another unexceptional member state of the United Nations; subject to international norms and conventions.

Wake up America … Remove the incompetent, un-American progressive socialist democrats from Congress while we still have the opportunity to save America from those who would destroy this exceptional nation.

--- steve

IS THIS PROOF THAT WE NEED TO CONTROL DOMESTIC TERRORIST GANGS?

Posted: 04 Mar 2014 08:28 PM PST

In the video, you can see two gangbangers, allegedly from Southern California, fighting in Syria …

If these individuals are American citizens, a clear violation of their passport privilege -- which needs to be revoked and their travel restricted as to never allow them to return to the United States.

Two L.A. gang members are apparently fighting for Syria’s Assad
Two Los Angeles gang members appear to have joined the flow of foreigners flocking to fight in Syria – in this instance, on the side of President Bashar al-Assad. In a video posted online, the two men boast that they are on the front lines and fire their guns in the direction of what they call "the enemigos."
One of the men identifies himself as Creeper from the Sur-13 or Surenos, a loose affiliation of southern California gangs linked to the Mexican mafia. He rolls up his sleeves to show his gang tattoos and greets fellow gang members Capone-E and Crazy Loco.
The other says he is called Wino, and belongs to a gang called Westside Armenian Power. Members of the Armenian Christian minority in Syria are known to be staunch supporters of Assad.
The two men don't reveal much about what they are doing or why they are fighting for Assad.
Warning: the video, posted here, contains strong language. This version is provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, and contains subtitles.
It was impossible to independently verify the authenticity of the video or determine where or when it was filmed. But the desolate scene in which the two men are firing from a bombed building looks like Syria.
<Source: Two L.A. gang members are apparently fighting for Syria’s Assad>

Bottom line …

If this is literally true, we have a heavily-armed invasion force operating in American cities and possibly under the control of foreign sovereign nations. Most of the gangs are minority gangs based on color, ethnicity, and national origin. A clear and present danger to America and all Americans. Another reason why the progressive socialist democrats are trying to disarm law-abiding citizens in favor of creating a larger pool of victims that will demand that America move towards a totalitarian police state to ensure individual safety.

Wake up America. Illegal aliens with allegiance to foreign sovereign nations are pouring over our borders. This includes the criminals and crazies that the progressives continue to ignore while debating economic and social justice – the precursor of socialism and communism.

-- steve

PROGRESSIVES SHOCKED THAT PRETTY BOY CELEBRITY RONAN FARROW IS NOT A HIT WITH THE YOUNGER CROWD

Posted: 04 Mar 2014 05:12 PM PST

Take a telegenic well-spoken celebrity spawn of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen (or Frank Sinatra if you believe the rumors and your eyes), add the standard upper-class education (Yale Law School, Oxford), experiences secured by connections (Special Adviser to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama), and give him a television show on uber-liberal MSNBC and hope that he will attract a younger demographic …

Ronan Farrow: The Young Man Only Old People Like - Young Blue Eyes fails to bring young viewers to MSNBC.
The New York Times Sunday Styles section published a piece last month depicting MSNBC host Ronan Farrow, the celebrity son of Mia Farrow and either Woody Allen or Frank Sinatra, being embraced by Manhattan’s moneyed, aging A-list. Another profile, this one in the New York Times Magazine,described the new host as a “reluctant” television star. Whether the irony was intended is unclear, but the piece quotes MSNBC president Phil Griffin recounting his first meeting with Farrow: “Within 20 minutes I wanted to hire him,” Griffin said. “He’s got it.”
Griffin rewarded Farrow with a contract rumored to be in the low millions.
Farrow was mentored since his mid-teens by the late diplomat Richard Holbrooke. After Holbrooke’s sudden death Farrow was appointed to a murky role as “special adviser” to Hillary Clinton during her tenure at the State Department. He certainly knows how to charm sexagenarian elites, but young people don’t seem to like him much. The New York Times has aptly labeled himl“the youngest old guy in the room.” Griffin hadhopedthe 26-year-old would help draw younger viewers to MSNBC, but after his first week on the air, Farrow’s ratings in the 18–49 demographic fell far below those from the comparable week a year ago, when Andrea Mitchell Reports was running in the same time slot.
Farrow’s largest audience, according to Deadline Hollywood, was among adults 50 and older: that is, among the same demographic that groomed the precocious Farrow from childhood and taught him to meet their expectations. Griffin may have high hopes, but Farrow doesn’t look like the right pick to shake things up or shatter any preconceived notions. The Yale Law School graduate and Rhodes Scholar fits perfectly into the larger fabric of the network Griffin has shaped around 9 p.m. host Rachel Maddow, whose Stanford degree and Rhodes Scholarship make her the network’s preeminent wonk. Farrow will continue to do what he’s been doing for the past 26 years: striking a perfect pitch for the liberal elite. That’s probably not the missing ingredient at the network, whose increasingly preening tone hasn’t helped ratings.
Read more at: National Review Online

What liberals don’t understand …

Young people do not appear to identify with manufactured and molded celebrities whose accomplishments, while commendable, were based on wealth, privilege, position, and contacts. And, no matter what the accomplishments may be, the majority of American youth do not identify with androgynous pretty boys of suspect sexuality unless they are performers.

Then, too, is the shrill falsetto notes of the liberal elites – the progressive socialist democrats – whose prescriptions for America seem to ring hollow when they are spouted by “don’t do as I do, do as I say” limousine liberals whose lives are exempt from the reality of their prescriptions. Who among you think that progressive Ronan Farrow will obtain the same quality of healthcare that the rest of us are forced to accept under Obamacare?

And, if you see most shows hosted by liberals, it is always about a combination of self-promotion and an ideology that can only be defended by labeling those who disagree haters, deniers, and ‘phobes. There is no two-way conversational discourse with those who do not believe as they do. Unfortunately, MSNBC’s President Phil Griffin fails to see that he lives in liberal echo chamber that becomes increasingly unattractive over time. Same shrill rant, same demonstrable lies, and the same sycophantic worship of the fifth column of international socialists and communists who are trying to destroy America from within.

Bottom line …

Ronan Farrow, billed as a foreign affairs and public policy expert, is what’s wrong with America. Another Northeastern elites who believes that they can mold the world by the force of their personality and PowerPoint presentations. Funny, when you consider the world’s Muslims and leaders like Vladimir Putin look at these useful idiots and laugh over the way America has declined and squandered its political, financial, and military capital.

If anything, Ronan Farrow, the liberal lawyer is what is wrong with America. So why should he attract any audience except for the aging hippies, the liberal elite, and those who believe that the Messiah is a politician.

-- steve

MEDICARE PART D: ARE THE PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS INCREASING CLARITY OR KILLING COMPETITION?

Posted: 03 Mar 2014 08:37 PM PST

There come a time when you cannot believe anything put forth about healthcare from the progressive socialist democrats and their special interest friends who crafted Obamacare in a secret back room with only the socialist foundations and campaign funding special interests present.

Not only have they stolen $500 billion from senior citizens when the gutted the Medicare Advantage Plan to help fund Obamacare, it appears that they are going to eliminate competition in the Medicare Part D plans by reducing some of the participants.

The big lie told by the big liar-in-chief …

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period! If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, period! Of course what was never said was that the government’s rules and regulations precluded the insurers from offering your old plans and that the cost competition was demanding the consolidation of available doctors into more manageable (and sometimes lower quality) groups.

If President Barack Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats in Congress had wanted more competition and fairer pricing in the healthcare insurance market, they would have eliminated regional and state insurer monopolies by opening a national market for insurance. This would allow from greater price competition and benefits from operating in a vastly larger risk pool. But, no – the progressive socialist democrats needed the campaign funds from the big insurance companies, so they restricted rather than expanded the marketplace.

And, now they are lying again …

Medicare Program; Contract Year 2015 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs

A Proposed Rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on 01/10/2014

The proposed rule would revise the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) regulations and prescription drug benefit program (Part D) regulations to implement statutory requirements; strengthen beneficiary protections; exclude plans that perform poorly; improve program efficiencies; and clarify program requirements. The proposed rule also includes several provisions designed to improve payment accuracy.

From the Executive Summary …

The purpose of this proposed rule is to make revisions to the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) and Prescription Drug Benefit Program (Part D) regulations based on our continued experience in the administration of the Part C and Part D programs and to implement certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

The proposed changes are necessary to—(1) clarify various program participation requirements; (2) make changes to strengthen beneficiary protections; (3) strengthen our ability to identify strong applicants for Part C and Part D program participation and remove consistently poor performers; and (4) make other clarifications and technical changes.

3. Drug Categories or Classes of Clinical Concern

This proposed provision would interpret the Affordable Care Act authority to limit protected classes to those for which access to all drugs in a category or class for a typical individual with a disease or condition treated by the drugs in the class is required within 7 days and more specific formulary requirements would not suffice to meet multitude of specific applications of the drugs within the category or class. Instead of mandating coverage of all drug products in a particular class on all Part D formularies, we can save costs by identifying more efficient formulary requirements or other beneficiary protections in most cases.

HUH?

These proposed administrative rules and regulations are not written in a clear and easy-to-understand manner; for those voting on these measures or those subject to these measures. They are full of hyper-technical language along with references to code sections and definitions that could easily change the meaning of the legislation or otherwise hide loopholes, carve-outs, exceptions, and draconian measures.

What does this really mean?

House subcommittee chairman: Obama administration policy would eliminate half of all existing Medicare Part D plans
The Obama administration’s new proposed rule for Medicare Part D would eliminate half of all Medicare Part D plans and raise prescription drug premiums for millions of seniors by up to 20 percent, according to a U.S. House subcommittee chairman.
“Today, the average senior has 35 different [Medicare Part D] plans to choose from this year. This rule would reduce that choice to two plans. 50% of the plans offered today will be gone, and the health care that seniors like may go with it,” House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee chairman Rep. Joe Pitts said in a statement at a Feb. 26 hearing attended by a top administration health official.
“Limiting seniors’ choices like this will inevitably lead to higher costs. By some estimates, the restriction on the number of plans that can be offered could cause premiums to rise by 10%-20%. Costs to the federal government may increase by $1.2-1.6 billion according to a study by Milliman,” Pitts said. “… I urge Secretary Sebelius and Administrator Tavenner to rescind this rule.”
The study Pitts cited also showed that the new rule would increase out-of-pocket drug costs for 6.9 million seniors who do not qualify for low-income subsidies, and would raise federal taxpayer costs for six million seniors who do qualify.
Read more atSubcommittee: CMS to eliminate half of Medicare Part D plans | The Daily Caller

Bottom line …

The mis-named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does little to offer patient protections or affordable care. This legislation is just another part of attempting to fix fatally flawed legislation while enticing the special interests to pony up campaign funds for the upcoming congressional election cycle that is likely to see the progressive socialist democrats held accountable for the lies told by President Obama and the progressive socialist democrats in Congress. Without this money to counteract truthful advertising, it is likely that the democrats will be punished for their attempt to destroy America and Americans from within.

I say throw out all of the progressive socialist democrats in local, state, and federal races – reduce corruption and restore some modicum of commonsense.

-- steve

SM1'S BLOG 4 U

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Obama v. Putin: President Obama is ill-equipped to be Commander-in-Chief and is being outplayed by Putin (again)!

One Citizen Speaking...

Two L.A. gang members are apparently fighting for Syria’s Assad

Medicare Program; Contract Year 2015 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs

House subcommittee chairman: Obama administration policy would eliminate half of all existing Medicare Part D plans

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

RT @anti_commie32: Keep up the great work!!! https://t.co/FIAnl1hxwG

Popular Posts

wibiya widget