BOOM: Another chunk of ObamaCare fails, delayed for a year

By: John Hayward  of HUMAN EVENTS        Powerful Conservative Voices
11/27/2013 03:14 pm

Congress really needs to get cracking on ObamaCare repeal… while there’s still something left to repeal.  Because another big chunk of it – another massive system we were promised would be ship-shape by the end of November – just blew up, leaving the maestros of under-achievement to announce a one-year delay on the eve of the Thanksgiving holiday.  From the Washington Examiner:

Everybody who was waiting for the pre-Thanksgiving Obamacare news dump can stop waiting.

The online exchange that was supposed to make it easier for small businesses to sign up for health insurance through President Obama’s health care law has been delayed for a year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, announced on an afternoon conference call.

According to CMS spokeswoman Julie Bataille, the small business website now won’t be available until December 2014.

HHS officials have repeatedly vowed that the feature, known as the SHOP exchange, would be available this November for the federal exchange, which serves residents of 36 states.

“The SHOP Marketplace for Federally-facilitated Marketplace states opens Oct. 1, 2013, when small employers can start the application process and get an overview of available plans and premiums in their area,” an HHS press release from Sept. 26 read. “All functions for SHOP will be available in November and if employers and employees enroll by Dec. 15, 2013, coverage will begin Jan. 1, 2014.”

This promise was repeated in testimony before Congress, too.  The small-business exchange had already been delayed twice; skeptical Republicans wondered if there was any reason to believe the new assurances.

And now… poof.  Gone.  All that Intertube and webby stuff is overrated anyway!  Never mind the millions of tax dollars that have been frittered away.  Grab a pen and some stamps, and mail your small-business paperwork with the tried-and-true postal service.  Or maybe you can use one a’ them newfangled “fax machines” the youngsters are all lathered up about!

“We’ve concluded that we can best serve small employers by continuing this offline process while we concentrate on both creating a smoothly functioning online experience in the SHOP Marketplace, and adding key new features, including an employee choice option and premium aggregation services, by November 2014,” said the official declaration of failure, as quoted by Politico.  Oh, so they’re going to “continue the offline process!”  Huzzah!  Just give them another year, and they’ll have that online thing all worked out.  You can believe them this time.  Pinky swear.

Amusingly, it appears President Obama didn’t warn his pet liberal bloggers this was coming, when he had them over for a meeting just the other day.  Bafflement and mystification are the order of the day among the White House media auxiliaries.  Let’s see if they have enough integrity to refine those feelings into anger and betrayal by Monday.

Republicans didn’t have to waste any time shedding illusions, so they responded quickly.  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH):

The president bit off more than he can chew with this health care law, and small businesses are now forced to bear the consequences. Business owners across this country are already having health care plans for their employees canceled by this law, and now they’re told they won’t have access to the system the president promised them to find them different coverage. Instead, they’ll  have to resort to a system you’d expect to see in the 1950s.  It’s another broken promise and more proof this administration’s assurances have no credibility. This law has been an absolute disaster, leaving us to ask ‘what’s next?’ If the president won’t repeal it, he should at least delay the entire law before it wreaks any more havoc on American families and small businesses, as well as our economy.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sponsor of the recently-passed Keep Your Health Plan Act:

Turkey is not the only thing being carved at the White House this Thanksgiving. As Americans prepare to celebrate and give thanks with their families, the administration announces yet another carefully timed delay of its signature health care law. Just as it did over July 4 while we celebrated our independence, today the administration is doing its best to bury the latest confirmation that this law was not ready for prime time. For months officials looked us in the eye and told us everything was ‘on track’ but we have now learned through our investigation that internally the administration had serious concerns about its ability to deliver on October 1. Piecemeal delays and working outside of Congress to issue regulations does nothing to solve the fact that this law remains a tremendous failure that still, two months into open enrollment, is not even 80 percent operational.

RNC chairman Reince Priebus:

While Americans prepare for the holidays and one day after President Obama gave another speech trying to blame the ObamaCare trainwreck on Republicans, his administration is delaying yet another portion of his signature healthcare law.  With each passing day, it’s clear how much worse ObamaCare is than a website full of glitches.

Isn’t technocratic liberalism grand?  Never before has so much money been spent on computer systems to enable the offline process of stuffing folded paper into envelopes to “continue.”


Dingy Harry Reid Can Be Stopped – If We Have the Guts


by The Common Constitutionalist

November 25, 2013

So Harry Reid actually did it. He finally pulled the trigger on the so-called “Nuclear Option.” What does that mean for us – for our country? Nothing good, I’m afraid.

The “nuclear option” refers to the Senate’s advice and consent of a president’s nomination of cabinet heads and judges. With a single party line vote (all but three), Harry Reid has made the confirmation process much easier. It now takes a 51 vote simple majority to confirm a nominee. It had been 60 votes.

100325_reid_ap_328Some have said, “Well at least it doesn’t include Supreme Court nominees.” That is correct. The Supreme Court is exempt from the new simple majority rule… that is until the Democrats decide they also want to include it. The only reason the Supreme Court was left out, was simply because no one on the court has claimed they are retiring. If say, Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsberg wanted to call it quits, the Supreme Court would’ve been part of the simple majority deal. You can bet on that.

So with that vote, the radicals in the Senate, led by Reid, are free to pack the lower courts, expand the courts and create new courts if they wish. What do I mean by expanding and create? They can do that? Yep!

The United States Constitution states that,

“the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (Emphasis added).

So they can create whole new courts and expand the numbers of leftist judges on current courts to overwhelm the right.

This will have a devastating effect on our lives. Just think about. There will be no redress of grievance when the Environmental Protection Agency takes your property or shuts down your business. When Eric Holder demands surrender of your weapon, what court will hear your complaint or side with you? Don’t talk to me about the Supreme Court. You’ll be old and gray by the time your case gets there, if ever.

Not to mention that now virtually any leftist radical can become a lower court, district or appellate judge. Just imagine Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Anita (Maoist) Dunn, communist professors from Columbia in Berkeley, dressed up in their black robes and Birkenstocks, smoking weed at the bench; all there for a lifetime. No, one does not have to be an attorney to become judge; any radical will do.

This decision will affect elections, legislation, everything. Conservative state laws will be struck down or stayed by radical federal courts. Every lower court could eventually look like the Ninth Circuit Court. State election laws, gun laws, education, abortion laws – everything will be affected.


In fact, one could argue, with enough leftist courts, one doesn’t even need a federal legislature. Everything will be decided for the left by the courts.

True enough. So how can that evil Harry Reid be stopped?

Well, it’s actually quite simple. I didn’t say easy, for if that were true it would have been done. Republicans are great with the easy way out.

The overrun of the courts can be stopped the same way Obamacare could have… with money… or lack of.

Remember the whole “Power of the Purse” argument put forth by some wide-eyed naïve conservatives; that Obamacare just be defunded? Go ahead and pass all the silly laws you want but you’ll get no money to implement. That was the idea. Same here.

Every judge, every clerk, the building, the lights, the water fountain in the hallway, are all dependent upon Congress deciding to pay for them. Without funding, the courts don’t exist. It’s as simple as that. That’s how to stop it. I guess it’s time to start calling Congress again.

On a personal note, I agree with what Rush Limbaugh said on Friday, that evildoers will always have to pay for their deeds. One way or the other they will eventually have to pay for their wickedness. If not here on earth then in the afterlife, and people like Harry Reid, if not forced to answer for his evil, underhanded ways on earth, will burn in the depths of Hell, unless he repents. He belongs there and no doubt many compatriots like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and George Soros will be right by his side.

One way or another, good will triumph over evil. It always does. We may not see that day, but it will come.

Read more:

‘Nuclear Option’ Does Enable Democrats To Ensure One-Party Authoritarian Control of Health Care


By Michael F. Cannon  of the CATO Institute

This article appeared on on November 25, 2013.

Last week, I explained that the U.S. Senate’s deployment of the “nuclear option” — lowering the threshold for approval of non-Supreme Court presidential nominees from 60 votes to 51 votes — does not make it easier for President Obama to use ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board. I need to add this caveat: during his tenure. The nuclear option does enhance the ability of the president and his party to control the health care sector well after he leaves office.

It’s true that the rules change will make it easier for the president to have his IPAB nominees approved by the Senate, particularly through January 2015, when the Democratic caucus holds 55 seats. But if the president and Senate fail to seat anyone on the IPAB, the board’s sweeping legislative powers fall to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If President Obama wants to use IPAB’s powers during his term, therefore, he need only retain Kathleen Sebelius as his HHS secretary.

Last week, I explained that the U.S. Senate’s deployment of the “nuclear option” — lowering the threshold for approval of non-Supreme Court presidential nominees from 60 votes to 51 votes — does not make it easier for President Obama to use ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board. I need to add this caveat: during his tenure. The nuclear option does enhance the ability of the president and his party to control the health care sector well after he leaves office.

It’s true that the rules change will make it easier for the president to have his IPAB nominees approved by the Senate, particularly through January 2015, when the Democratic caucus holds 55 seats. But if the president and Senate fail to seat anyone on the IPAB, the board’s sweeping legislative powers fall to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If President Obama wants to use IPAB’s powers during his term, therefore, he need only retain Kathleen Sebelius as his HHS secretary.

“It’s not just unfair or partisan or economically inefficient or unconstitutional. It’s also undemocratic.”

ObamaCare permits IPAB to exercise its powers, however, only if Medicare’s actuaries project the program’s outlays will grow faster than a specified rate. A number of readers note that Medicare’s actuaries reported earlier this year that their projections currently do not show Medicare spending exceeding that target rate, and that their projections likely will not do so during the remainder of President Obama’s term. Those projections and the resulting determination could change next year. If so, and if the president and Senate have not placed confirmed any IPAB members, Secretary Sebelius could use IPAB’s powers during President Obama’s term. Those powers include the ability to raise taxes, to ration care to Medicare enrollees, and to appropriate funds to her own department, without the consent of the people’s elected representatives. (Critics will object that IPAB has none of these powers. In this study, Diane Cohen and I explain why we think they are incorrect.) Sebelius’ “proposal” would take effect during 2016.

Regardless of whether Medicare’s actuaries pull that trigger, however, President Obama and Senate Democrats face a huge incentive to nominate and confirm as many IPAB members as they can, as quickly as they can: with the nuclear option, Democrats now have it within their power to ensure Democratic control of IPAB — and with it, essentially the entire health care sector — at least through the first term of President Obama’s successor and the next three Congresses, even if Republicans capture the presidency, retain the House, and take control of the Senate. Consider.

  • Despite requirements that the president consult with the leaders of both parties in Congress on his IPAB picks, there is no obligation for the president to select members from both parties. The president can stack IPAB entirely with members of his own party and ideological persuasion.
  • IPAB members serve terms that are nominally six years, but actually serve until they are replaced. So a board member who is confirmed in 2014 will serve at least through 2020, and possibly longer.
  • If President Obama and Senate Democrats seat even one IPAB member, they can maintain Democratic control of IPAB for as long as they retain control of the Senate. If a Republican wins the White House in 2016, the fact that there is one sitting IPAB member is enough to prevent a Republican HHS secretary (Paul Ryan, maybe?) from wielding IPAB’s powers. Only one member need be seated for the “board” itself to do business. A Democratic Senate could then keep that one-member IPAB 100-percent Democratic by blocking any Republican nominees to the board.
  • If President Obama and Senate Democrats seat only eight IPAB members, they will guarantee a Democratic majority on the board through at least 2020 (and beyond if they then control the Senate and/or the presidency).
  • If President Obama and Senate Democrats seat all 15 IPAB members, his successor will not be able to appoint any members during her first term. Even if Republicans take the White House and the Senate. Nor would a Republican successor be able to remove any Obama appointees. The president may remove IPAB members “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.

Here’s where things get scary.

ObamaCare mandates certain procedures that Congress must follow if it wants to overrule IPAB’s, ahem, “proposals.” The people’s elected representatives must clear certain hurdles — some as high as IPAB wishes to set them — if they want to retain their authority as the ones who write laws regarding health care. (The Congress that enacted ObamaCare had no lawful power to enact such requirements, but no matter. George F. Will writes that Diane Cohen and I “well described” IPAB as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.”)

As Cohen and I report, during the first term of President Obama’s successor, Congress loses even those limited powers to restrain IPAB:

Worse, if Congress fails to repeal IPAB through the restrictive procedure laid out in the Act, then after 2020, Congress loses the ability even to offer substitutes for IPAB proposals…To constrain IPAB at all after 2020, Congress must repeal it between January and August in 2017.

Though this will be news even to most health policy wonks, I won’t explain here how ObamaCare produces this frightening result. I refer readers instead to the Cohen-Cannon study.

But the upshot is this. To the extent Democrats use the nuclear option to pack IPAB with Democratic appointees in 2014, and are able to retain the White House or the Senate in 2016 and beyond, they will be able to ensure one-party authoritarian control of the U.S. health care sector. That’s not just unfair or partisan or economically inefficient or unconstitutional. It’s also undemocratic.

Louie Gohmert Exposes Obamacare Secret Security Force

November 16, 2013 by 

Do you ever have those moments when you feel validated? I had one of those moments this morning. Finally someone is talking about the secret security force that is mandated by Obamacare. Representative Louie Gohmert (Republican – Texas – 1st District) dropped his bombshell last week on The Janet Mefferd Show.

see this youtube video:

Paul Joseph Watson reports:

Referring to a section of the gargantuan Obamacare law which discusses “the president’s own commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps,” Gohmert drew attention to the notion that under the pretext of a “national emergency,” such individuals could be used to impose some form of medical martial law.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the Ready Reserve Corps is directed to “assist full-time Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.”

“It says it is for international health crises, but then it doesn’t include the word ‘health’ when it talks about national emergencies,” said Gohmert.

“I’ve asked, what kind of training are they getting….I want to know are they using weapons to train, or are they being taught to use syringes and health care items?” asked the Congressman, adding that “no clear answers” had been forthcoming on the issue.”

Combined with the continued DHS arms build up along with the federal agency’s hiring of armed guards with “Top Secret” security clearances, Gohmert characterized the issue as “very disturbing”.

I first reported on this in August after reading a sobering article in The Daily Mail. Why does Obamacare need its own police force? The IRS already has agents trained with a multitude of weapons including AR-15s.

In the wake of Jeff Duncan’s reporting of IRS agents being trained with AR-15s I think we should be at least somewhat concerned with a breaking news story about the new “ObamaCare” Police. It would seem that the IRS implementation will not be the only strong arm of ObamaCare but that Health and Human Services will have a substantial number of investigative storm troopers as well.

The Daily Mail reports:

More than 1,600 new employees hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources in the aftermath of Obamacare’s passage include just two described as ‘consumer safety’ officers, but 86 tasked with ‘criminal investigating’ – indicating that the agency is building an army of detectives to sleuth out violations of a law that many in Congress who supported it still find confusing.


On the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, HHS received authority from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to make as many as 1,814 new hires under an emergency ‘Direct Hiring Authority’ order.

We are going to need more hollow point bullets it would seem. Is anyone really shocked by the fact that we have a brand new enforcement branch of HHS? I doubt it. This seems to be the norm in Washington these days. Last week we featured the story of a retired Marine Colonel who claims that a domestic army is being built. And who could blame anyone for thinking that? It is happening right in front of us.

Folks I made the comment at the beginning of this article about being validated because sometimes I feel really beat up by the “tin foil hat haters.”

Do you think I wake up each day and want to write about things that will leave me labeled as a lunatic? No I do not. I really don’t like people calling me crazy. That’s not my goal in life. I try to report these things to you because they are the truth and very few others seem to want to report such stories. states that Obamacare, “creates the ready reserve of individuals who can be called up for service by the U.S. surgeon general in times of need.” These are not things that I pull from thin air.

I have been screaming at the top of my lungs for almost a year that this stuff was happening and reaching dangerous levels. There is a police state being formed and your rights as an American citizen may soon be in dire jeopardy. I don’t know the time frame, but I do know it’s coming.

You can keep laughing at me if you want. That is your prerogative. This stuff is in black and white for everyone to see yet some just don’t want to take it seriously.

What I would kindly suggest is that you take a serious look at your self-defense capabilities. I am not really a prepper. My family is really in no financial position to stockpile anything. I would think that I am not the only one. The economy is horrible.

So here is my take. Guns and ammo are the most important thing by far. If you have firepower then you can hunt for food.

But good luck fighting off the bad guys with that freeze dried lasagna.


Washington Rejects Obama’s Proposal to Extend Canceled Policies – Unwilling & Unable


November 15, 2013 by   from

It did not take long for Obama’s proposal as detailed in Obama Changes His Mind (But Only For a Year); You Can Keep Your Plan IF Insurers Reinstate Them to blow sky high.

Two hours, to be precise.

Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal

Mike KreidlerThe Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.

State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.

Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.

“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”

“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”

Unwilling and Unable!

I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes …

Hello Mish

My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.

I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from “Affordable”. If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.

I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums.  It was what consumers could afford to buy.  The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.

Obama today has relented to pressures by “allowing” insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn’t mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.

Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It’s November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;


Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time.  Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their “cancelled” policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.

Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama’s “fix” to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.


Yesterday’s Recap

Sens. Mary Landrieu
(D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?

Still More Questions

While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and “you can keep your plan” but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.

Will insurers bother?
For a year?
What incentives do they have?

Bonus Questions

Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?

What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it’s “only” for a year?

An Answer and a New Question

It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won’t for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.

This raises another question: Shouldn’t Obama or his team have known this?

Read more:

Congressman: Benghazi Attackers Had Inside Information – “They Knew Everything”


15 November 2013

by Tim Brown of

I can’t say this news is surprising, considering the documented reports we have of terrorists acting as security for our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, but reports are now coming out that the jihadists who attacked the mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, had insider knowledge. To top that off, calls for more security, as well as calls that night for help were all ignored by the Obama administration.

Fox News reports:

The terrorists who attacked the Benghazi consulate last year knew the location of the safe room where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team sought shelter, according to a congressman who spoke for 90 minutes with the diplomatic security agent severely injured in the assault.

“He confirmed this – that it was a very well orchestrated, and well organized, almost a military operation, using military weapons and using military signals,” the late Florida Rep. Bill Young said after meeting diplomatic security agent David Ubben at Walter Reed Medical Center last summer, when both were patients there. 

Young died in mid-October, but his wife Beverly allowed Fox to print her husband’s comments about the attacks on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya.

“He (Ubben) emphasized the fact that it was a very, very military type of operation they had knowledge of almost everything in the compound,” Young explained. “They knew where the gasoline was, they knew where the generators were, they knew where the safe room was, they knew more than they should have about that compound.”

According to Fox, “Ubben was severely injured defending the CIA Annex when mortar fire rained down on the rooftop, killing former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and severely injuring a third CIA contractor who was interviewed by the House Intelligence committee Thursday.   After multiple surgeries, a source close to the contractor confirmed he has not regained the full use of his arm.

stevens-obama-clintonYoung also told Fox that Ubben believed that the jihadists had performed reconnaissance and had inside information. “Yes he (Ubben) did…It was pretty well figured out, where everything was, where the doors were located, where the safe room was – the whole thing,” Young said.

“…… it was a very, very military type of operation they had knowledge of almost everything in the compound,” Young explained. “They knew where the gasoline was, they knew where the generators were, they knew where the safe room was, they knew more than they should have about that compound.”


David Ubben was the diplomatic security agent who recovered the body of Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, from the burning building that was attacked.

“He was pretty sure Sean was dead when he pulled him, but he felt like he had to recover him anyway and get him out.  He would have done the same for the ambassador but he wasn’t really sure where the ambassador was,” Young said.

Young added, “I think he is an awfully sincere young guy. And I think he is a real hero for what he did that night…He did something he didn’t have to do, put his life in danger, and we know he was seriously injured.  He took major injuries (that) came from the mortar that landed on the roof that killed the other two.”

We know that the Obama administration knew there were concerns and pleas for additional security in Benghazi. We know that all was denied.

We know the State Department even used jihadists to provide security. We also know that Barack Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood buddy, former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsiwas involved as well.

We also know that members of special forces were in the areatold the White House they were under attack several times, requested backup numerous times and the Obama administration would not provide it. Instead, he provided a stand down order.

Instead of being concerned about Americans, Barack Obama went to bed and slept while they were murdered (which in my mind makes him complicit in their murder). He then got up and caught a flight to Vegas to campaign. He would then tell the American people that the problem was not with Islam and jihadists, but rather with the First Amendment as he sicked his attack dogs on a Coptic Christian, who made an anti-Islam film that had absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi.

It has been over a year, and to date, the Obama administration has not brought one person to justice nor has anyone been held accountable.

Read more:

Articles of Impeachment Introduced Today Against Eric Holder

by Tim Brown    14 November 2013     from

told you last week that Congressman Ted Yoho (R-FL) informed attendees at a town hall meeting that House Republicans would be seeking the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder regarding Operation Fast and Furious by the end of the year. Well, now articles of impeachment will be introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday by Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) and seven congressmen have signed onto the resolution. These articles go way beyond Fast and Furious.

In conversation with Rep. Olson’s office, Freedom Outpost was told that the resolution is set to be introduced Thursday afternoon in the House.

impeach_holder_banner_06-21-12 (1)

Olson, who was elected in 2009, has been calling for Holder’s impeachment since August.

There are four articles in the impeachment resolution.

Article I claims that Holder “engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him by refusing to “turn over lawfully subpoenaed documents requested by Congress” as part of a Congressional investigation into Fast and Furious.

Article II claims that the Attorney General violated his oath of office to enforce the laws of the land by announcing that he would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, even though the law was still on the books.

According to the document, “If the Administration wants to change the law, it should ask Congress to amend it. Only the Supreme Court can deem laws unconstitutional.”

Article III contends that Holder also violated his oath of office by refusing “to prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.”

Finally, Article IV contends that Holder “provided false testimony to the House Judiciary Committee” regarding the alleged criminal investigation into Fox News reporter James Rosen.

“The fact that there was a search warrant carried out on James Rosen means that the Justice Department either intended to prosecute him, or the Justice Department clearly violated the Privacy Protection Act,” according to the resolution.

Breitbart got the documents first and posted them online.

Olson Impeach Holder Resolution

Breitbart also received a memo from Olson’s office:

“For nearly five years, we have witnessed Mr. Holder repeatedly deceive Congress and degrade the credibility of the Justice Department in the eyes of the American people,” the members wrote. “Last year, the House of Representatives took the unprecedented step of holding Mr. Holder in contempt of Congress, making him the first sitting cabinet official ever to hold this distinction.”

“Unfortunately, Mr. Holder has continued to act in a manner unbefitting of a cabinet official; he has failed to perform his constitutional duties and violated the law on a number of occasions,” the statement continues. “The House of Representatives should not stand by as he continues to undermine the office of Attorney General.”

Olson’s supporters so far are:

  • Larry Bucshon (R-IN)
  • Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
  • Phil Roe (R-TN)
  • Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
  • Roger Williams (R-TX)
  • Ted Yoho (R-FL)
  • Randy Weber (R-TX)

I applaud these congressmen for finally bringing this resolution forward. The question now is, when will they do the same thing for Holder’s boss?

Your congressman needs to hear from you on this resolution. Contact them and demand that they support the impeachment of Eric Holder. Click here to contact your representative.

UPDATE: Melissa Kelly, Communications Director for Rep. Olson, contacted Freedom Outpost following the resolution’s introduction in the House with this email:

WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22) today introduced articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution outlines the offenses of lying to Congress, refusing to comply with a subpoena, and failing to fulfill his oath of office as crimes committed by Mr. Holder that rise to the level of impeachment. Olson was joined by Reps. Larry Buschon (R-IN), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), David Roe (R-TN), Randy Weber (R-TX), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Roger Williams (R-TX), Ted Yoho (R-FL) Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Bill Flores (R-TX), Mark Amodei (R-NV), Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Mike Conaway (R-TX), and Thomas Massie (R-KY) as original cosponsors. The resolution number is H.Res 411.

“For nearly five years, Attorney General Holder has systematically deceived Congress and destroyed the credibility of the Justice Department in the eyes of the American people. During his tenure, Mr. Holder refused to cooperate with a congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious and the resulting death of a Border Patrol agent, refused to prosecute IRS officials who unlawfully disclosed private tax records to third party groups, and misled Congress about his involvement in the investigation of a journalist,” Olson said.

“Last year, the House voted to hold Mr. Holder in contempt of Congress, making him the first sitting cabinet member to ever hold this dubious distinction. Still, he continued mislead and thwart congressional efforts to bring the truth to the American people. Mr. Holder has failed to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed and continues to act in a manner unbefitting of a cabinet official. I urge my colleagues to join me in beginning this process by cosponsoring this measure now. The American people deserve answers and accountability,” Olson concluded.

The articles of impeachment lay out four charges against Mr. Holder:

1. Refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011, seeking information and documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious. This is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192.

2. Failure to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” of Attorney General.

3. Refusal to prosecute the IRS officials involved in the targeting and disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” of Attorney General.

4. False testimony under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, about the Justice Department investigation of journalist James Rosen. This is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621.

Mr. Holder’s behavior clearly falls under “high crimes and misdemeanors,” offenses that the US Constitution explicitly defines as grounds for removal of a Senate-confirmed cabinet official through impeachment. The time is now for the House of Representatives to act with the authority vested in us by the Constitution and remove Attorney General Holder from office.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Google Plus.

Read more:

Congressman: House Will Seek to Impeach Eric Holder over Fast & Furious


by Tim Brown   of

So House Republicans are not going for the big enchilada, but are instead claiming that they are going to impeach Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder. “It will probably be when we get back in (Washington),” said Congressman Ted Yoho (R-FL). “It will be before the end of the year.”

Yoho spoke to the Ocala Start Banner after a town hall meeting:

eric_holder_AP120628032779_620x350Yoho alluded to Holder during the town hall. Questioned by The Sun afterward, Yoho said a group of Republicans will discuss impeachment with House Speaker John Boehner.

“It’s to get him out of office — impeachment,” Yoho said, adding “it will probably be when we get back in (Washington). It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”

Cat Cammack, Yoho’s chief of staff, said the move comes out of frustration with Holder over a range of issues.

 “Obviously there is a lot frustration with our attorney general. You can name the botched programs,” Cammack said. “Fast and Furious has been one of the No. 1 complaints we get in our office and why no one has been held accountable.”

Holder was held in contempt of Congress last year for failing to provide all documentation related to Operation Fast and Furious, which the federal government walked nearly 2,500 guns across the US/Mexico border, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and at least two federal agents.

No one has been held accountable in the Fast and Furious scandal and part of the holdup of the investigation has been not only a plethora of scandals from the current administration, but also the executive privilege used by “Mr. Non-Transparency” himself, Barack Obama.

In 1876, the House was successful in impeaching Secretary of War William Belknap and they were also successful in impeaching President Bill Clinton in 1998. Both men saw the Senate acquit them.

C.I.A. Is Said to Pay AT&T for Call Data

 By   of The New York Times

Published: November 7, 2013

WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. is paying AT&T more than $10 million a year to assist with overseas counterterrorism investigations by exploiting the company’s vast database of phone records, which includes Americans’ international calls, according to government officials.

The cooperation is conducted under a voluntary contract, not under subpoenas or court orders compelling the company to participate, according to the officials. The C.I.A. supplies phone numbers of overseas terrorism suspects, and AT&T searches its database and provides records of calls that may help identify foreign associates, the officials said. The company has a huge archive of data on phone calls, both foreign and domestic, that were handled by its network equipment, not just those of its own customers.

The program adds a new dimension to the debate over government spying and the privacy of communications records, which has been focused on National Security Agency programs in recent months. The disclosure sheds further light on the ties between intelligence officials and communications service providers. And it shows how agencies beyond the N.S.A. use metadata — logs of the date, duration and phone numbers involved in a call, but not the content — to analyze links between people through programs regulated by an inconsistent patchwork of legal standards, procedures and oversight.

Because the C.I.A. is prohibited from spying on the domestic activities of Americans, the agency imposes privacy safeguards on the program, said the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because it is classified. Most of the call logs provided by AT&T involve foreign-to-foreign calls, but when the company produces records of international calls with one end in the United States, it does not disclose the identity of the Americans and “masks” several digits of their phone numbers, the officials said.

Still, the agency can refer such masked numbers to the F.B.I., which can issue an administrative subpoena requiring AT&T to provide the uncensored data. The bureau handles any domestic investigation, but sometimes shares with the C.I.A. the information about the American participant in those calls, the officials said.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the C.I.A., declined to confirm the program. But he said the agency’s intelligence collection activities were lawful and “subject to extensive oversight.”

“The C.I.A. protects the nation and upholds privacy rights of Americans by ensuring that its intelligence collection activities are focused on acquiring foreign intelligence and counterintelligence in accordance with U.S. laws,” he said. “The C.I.A. is expressly forbidden from undertaking intelligence collection activities inside the United States ‘for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of U.S. persons,’ and the C.I.A. does not do so.”

Mark Siegel, an AT&T spokesman, said: “We value our customers’ privacy and work hard to protect it by ensuring compliance with the law in all respects. We do not comment on questions concerning national security.”

The C.I.A. program appears to duplicate work performed by the N.S.A. But a senior American intelligence official, while declining to address whether the AT&T alliance exists, suggested that it would be rational for the C.I.A. to have its own program to check calling patterns linked to overseas terrorism suspects.

With on-the-ground operatives abroad seeking to disrupt terrorist activities in “time-sensitive threat situations,” the official said, the C.I.A. requires “a certain speed, agility and tactical responsiveness that differs” from that of other agencies. “That need to act without delay is often best met when C.I.A. has developed its own capabilities to lawfully acquire necessary foreign intelligence information,” the official said.

Since June, when documents leaked by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden began to surface, an international debate has erupted over the scope of N.S.A. surveillance and the agency’s relationships with American companies that operate networks or provide Internet communications services. Many of the companies have protested that they are legally compelled to cooperate. The AT&T-C.I.A. arrangement illustrates that such activities are not limited to the N.S.A., and that cooperation sometimes is voluntary.

While officials in Washington are discussing whether to rein in the N.S.A. on American soil, governments in Europe are demanding more transparency from the companies and threatening greater restraints. AT&T is exploring a purchase of Vodafone, a European cellphone service provider, and European regulators and politicians have vowed to intensely scrutinize such a deal.

AT&T has a history of working with the government. It helped facilitate the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program by allowing the N.S.A. to install secret equipment in its phone and Internet switching facilities, according to an account by a former AT&T technician made public in a lawsuit.

It was also one of three phone companies that embedded employees from 2003 to around 2007 in an F.B.I. facility, where they used company databases to provide quick analysis of call records. The embedding was shut down amid criticism by the Justice Department’s inspector general that officers were obtaining Americans’ call data without issuing subpoenas.

And, for at least the past six years, AT&T has embedded its employees in federally funded drug investigation offices to analyze call records, in response to subpoenas, to track drug dealers who switch phones. A briefing document for that program said AT&T had records of calls handled by its switches — including “a tremendous amount of international numbers that place calls through or roam on the AT&T network” — dating back to 1987, and described efforts to keep its existence “under the radar.”

The history of the C.I.A. program remains murky. It began sometime before 2010, and was stopped at some point but then was resumed, according to the officials. They said the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed about it.

While the N.S.A. is separately vacuuming up call metadata abroad, most scrutiny in the United States has focused on its once-secret program that uses court orders to domestic phone companies under the Patriot Act to assemble a comprehensive database of Americans’ calls.

Some lawmakers have proposed modifying it to have the phone companies, not the N.S.A., control the data, similar to how the C.I.A. has been operating.

Still, there may be limits to comparisons. The N.S.A. is subject to court-imposed rules about the standard that must be met before its analysts may gain access to its database, which contains records from multiple providers. The C.I.A. appears to have a freer hand, and officials said it had submitted significantly more queries to AT&T for data.

In addition, while both programs analyze cross-border calls of Americans, the N.S.A.’s Patriot Act database does not include purely foreign calls, while AT&T does not use purely domestic calls in analyzing links for the C.I.A., officials said.

Absent an emergency, phone companies are usually legally forbidden to provide customers’ calling records to the government except in response to a subpoena or a court order, and the C.I.A. has a mandate to focus overseas. Lawyers who reviewed the program, officials said, concluded that AT&T’s partial masking of American phone numbers satisfied those restrictions, citing a statutory exception to data privacy lawscovering “the acquisition by the United States government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications.”

That same exception has come to public attention before. It was apparently invoked by a still-secret Jan. 8, 2010, memo written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. A 2010 inspector general’s report described the memo as allowing the F.B.I. to obtain call records “on a voluntary basis from providers, without any legal process or a qualifying emergency.”

While the bureau said it would not use that memo, the report warned that the existence of the government’s still-classified legal theory created a “significant gap” in “accountability and oversight” and urged Congress to modify the statute. Lawmakers have not acted on that recommendation.

Common Core Islamic Indoctrination Textbook Has Floridians Outraged

November 5, 2013 by      of
Common Core Islamic indoctrination of students in American schools is overt. This is the goal. In Volusia County Florida, hundreds are protesting the ode to Islam that is “World History,” a Common Core approved high school history textbook. With an entire chapter dedicated to the virtues of Islam, and not a single chapter for Christianity, the textbook has Floridians in a frenzy. And who is the biggest pusher of Common Cores besides leftist progressives? The Islamic Society of North America, another Muslim Brotherhood front group, along with Hamas-CAIR; and in Florida, Hamas-CAIR is on the offensive.

cc-cairCommon Core seeks to indoctrinate students, to brainwash them into becoming followers of Islam; to make jihadists via the classroom. So, who’s behind the push for Common Core Islamic Indoctrination? Muslim Brotherhood front groups, namely the Islamic Society of North America.

In Florida, Hamas-CAIR is taking exception to the charge that the “World History” textbook used by high school history students is overtly pro-Muslim. It is more than pro-Muslim. It is more than just an Islam praising textbook. It is an instructional manual for the religion of death, and is a precursor to conversion.

In Volusia County, Florida, parents and community members are outraged that their children are being subjected to this level of Islamic proselytizing. Common Core seeks to make Islamic jihadists out of students. So people are taking to the streets.

Hundreds of people in Volusia County are preparing a protest against a textbook that’s in public schools across Florida. They believe a world history book dedicates too much material to Islam and doesn’t focus equally on Christianity and other religions. Some protest organizers want students to go home and tear the section on Islam out of their textbooks.

The textbook “World History” dedicates very little to Christianity or Judaism, and what is dedicated presents a distortion of Christianity. One would think that in a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles that these subjects would take precedence. Not now. Common Core maintains “Islam” preceded other religions in the founding of America. It doesn’t get more outrageous than this to try to rewrite American history. But leave it to the cult of Islam to come up with this one.

The controversy started unraveling after a 15-year-old Deltona high school student showed her mom her 10th-grade history book, which has an entire chapter dedicated to Islam but none of the other world religions. 

A conservative activist went to Facebook, calling for a curriculum overhaul, and nearly 200 activists are planning a protest at tomorrow’s Volusia County School Board meeting. 

The problem is: there needs to be balance. In America today, Christianity is being relegated to the trash heapWhy relegate Christianity to a footnote in an entire history book, and you give an entire chapter on the teachings of Islam? “District 2 Deltona commissioner Webster Barnaby said.

This is a question every freedom loving American would like answered. Why dedicate an ENTIRE chapter to a “religion” that was responsible for the death of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11, and is responsible for the continued massacre of Christians and Jews across the world? Not to mention that Islam is a religion dedicated to the complete destruction of the state of Israel and death to America. It is a religion one responsible for child rape, genital mutilation, honor killings, and countless other atrocities. The list could go on and on.

The School district officials in Volusia County insist that there’s no problem because other religions come up as a matter of course in the book. “Christianity and Judaism is [sic] spread throughout the book,” a school district spokeswoman told WFTV.

The school district is lying. The textbook, called simply “World History,” contains a 32-page chapter fondly devoted to “Muslim Civilizations.” Sections include descriptions of the Koran, the growth of the Muslim empire and the Five Pillars of Islam.

Now we’re getting to the truth. An entire 32 page chapter dedicated to the Koran, and the Five Pillars of Islam? This is 100 percent Islamic indoctrination presented as “history.”

Hamas-CAIR Florida released a statement, standing by the school district in question. “This group is holding a protest and rally to oppose the teaching of the historical and basic Pillars of Islam to students in Volusia County. [It] is displaying an alarming level of intolerance and brazen disregard of minority religions. . .We find their  actions un-American and against every core principal that makes this country so great.

The protest is against Islamic jihad conversion via a history textbook. And coming from the “tolerant” followers of Islam, this is interesting. For the most intolerant always lash out at others as intolerant. The Common Core Islamic Indoctrination is pure evil, and God bless the protestors willing to stand up for this atrocity.

Read more: