Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?”

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

Ham’s declassified testimony further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.”

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -“

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony.

“He is in the president’s Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives — is that  the American people feel misled.”

“Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”

Neither Panetta’s office nor the White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.

By James Rosen

On Monday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia slammed President Barack Obama’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution during oral arguments over Recess appointments.

The case, National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning, is over whether the president acted legally when he made a series of temporary appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not conducting business  but still gavelling in and out every day.

Clause three of the Constitution’s section on presidential powers states that, “The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

At issue is if the president acted in poor faith by saying the Senate was not in session. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued that the Constitution is ambiguous on the subject.

“It’s been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents,” Scalia replied. After Scalia’s retort, the court room was filled with “oohs” and laughter, Talking Points Memo reports.

Since the National Labor Relations Board conflict, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has broken centuries of tradition by allowing Senate approval for appointments by majority vote, thereby making the case less consequential to Senate procedure.

But if the Supreme Court rules against the White House, the board’s executive actions will no longer be valid.

By Christopher Bedford

With media attention focused on Chris Christie and Bridgegate, it was easy to miss a more important Washington story last week. The other shoe dropped on the Obama presidency.

Still battered at home by the ObamaCare debacle and the permanently sluggish economy, the last thing the White House wanted was bad news on foreign policy. But that’s exactly what it got, and then some, thanks to the shockingly scathing book by Robert Gates.

The former defense secretary offers the most devastating critique to come from an Obama insider. He paints the president as estranged from the very Afghan military surge he ordered and suspicious of and hostile toward top leaders of the armed forces.

Gates is especially critical of Vice President Joe Biden, writing that he has been “wrong on nearly every major foreign-policy and national-security issue over the past four decades.”

He blames Biden and others for leading Obama to believe that military leaders were giving the president “the bum’s rush” in seeking more troops in Afghanistan in 2009, according to excerpts.

“Suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials — including the president and vice president — became a big problem for me,” Gates writes.

Hillary Rodham Clinton also comes off as a craven politician, with Gates saying he witnessed Clinton confess to Obama that she opposed the 2007 Iraq surge because she thought it would help her 2008 presidential campaign.

The book, set for release this week, carries extra sting because Gates is a widely respected team player who served presidents from both parties. The former head of the CIA, he led the Pentagon under George W. Bush and Obama.

His status as a kind of one-man blue-ribbon panel makes it impossible to refute his charges. The result is that the existing image of Obama as incompetent on domestic policies is now twinned with one of incompetence abroad. And those views are rapidly hardening into fixed conventional wisdom.

The implications are enormous for the three years left in his term. “It makes him even more of a lame duck,” says Ed Rollins, a GOP wise man . He says Obama, whose approval number is stuck at about 40 percent, won’t be welcome to campaign for most Democrats during this year’s election.

“Most will say, ‘Thanks but no thanks, just send the money,’ ” Rollins adds.

And Obama’s lack of commitment to the war on terror is something our enemies already figured out and are exploiting.

Longtime al Qaeda expert Peter Bergen pulls together disturbing developments previously reported only in piecemeal fashion. “From around Aleppo in western Syria to small areas of Falluja in central Iraq, al Qaeda now controls territory that stretches more than 400 miles across the heart of the Middle East,” Bergen writes for CNN, and adds, “Al Qaeda appears to control more territory in the Arab world than it has done at any time in its history.”

Others note that borders are being erased as terror groups carve out safe havens in several countries. Even The New York Times took a rare break from its propaganda approach to Obama, seeing a “power vacuum” and “a post-American Middle East in which no broker has the power, or the will, to contain the region’s sectarian hatreds.”

It later added a frightening note, reporting that intelligence officials say Syrian Islamists are trying to recruit Americans to carry out terror attacks here.

This “parade of horribles” largely reflects a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia for Muslim supremacy that is spreading because Obama has abdicated global leadership. Adding a nuclear-armed Iran to the dangerous mix is a terrifying prospect to many in the region.

But not to worry, the administration is on the case. Secretary of State John Kerry paid his 10th visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in a frantic, and relatively pointless, effort to get a peace treaty.

And President Obama returned from his 17-day, $4 million vacation in Hawaii and promptly denounced income inequality. On Friday, the Justice Department said it would recognize gay marriage in Utah, even though the state doesn’t.

And the band played on.

By Michael Goodwin

WASHINGTON –  Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in his upcoming memoir, has harsh words for President Obama’s leadership style and commitment to the Afghanistan war, accusing the president of losing faith in his own strategy.

“For him, it’s all about getting out,” he wrote.

The tone of Gates’ book is a break from Washington decorum, in which former Cabinet members rarely level tough judgments against sitting presidents.

Gates writes that by early 2010 he had concluded the president “doesn’t believe in his own strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his.”

The book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” is scheduled for a Jan. 14 release by the Knopf DoubleDay Publishing Group. Excerpts, confirmed by Fox News, were first reported by The Washington Post and New York Times.

The 70-year-old Gates writes that Obama appeared to doubt his own strategy in Afghanistan to the point of being “outright convinced it would fail.”

Obama deployed 30,000 more troops to stabilize Afghanistan before starting to remove soldiers in mid-2011, after months of tense discussion with Gates and other top advisers.

Gates said he never doubted Obama’s support for the troops, “only his support for their mission.”

In an essay Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal apparently to promote the book, Gates also writes that Obama’s “fundamental problem in Afghanistan was that his political and philosophical preferences for winding down the U.S. role conflicted with his own pro-war public rhetoric … the nearly unanimous recommendations of his senior civilian and military advisers at the departments of State and Defense, and the realities on the ground.”

Gates, a carryover from the Bush administration who worked for every president since Nixon, except Clinton, said that underneath his notoriously calm exterior he was frequently “seething” because he felt Obama and his team had neither trust nor confidence in him.

Despite his criticism of Obama, Gates writes about the commander in chief’s primary Afghanistan polices: “I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions.”

And he writes approvingly about Obama in several other passages, calling him “a man of personal integrity.”

He admits to having “a few issues” with George W. Bush and essentially wrote approvingly of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whom he described as being “smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world.”

However, Gates, who also worked at the CIA and National Security Council, is largely critical of Vice President Joe Biden, accusing him of “poisoning the well” for military leadership.

At the White House, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in response to the book, “The president welcomes differences of view among his national security team, which broaden his options and enhance our policies.

“The president disagrees with Secretary Gates’ assessment — from his leadership on the Balkans in the Senate, to his efforts to end the war in Iraq, Joe Biden has been one of the leading statesmen of his time, and has helped advance America’s leadership in the world.”

An Open Letter to the Obama Administration and American Citizens:

My family’s journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013. I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us. We are a family of four, with two little boys’ ages seven years old and three years old. My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively. We have been with the same two companies for those years. We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us. We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.

On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama. When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement. Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband. So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us. This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month. I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this. Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly. I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kid’s college, our retirement, etc. I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month – how in the world could this help the economy too?

Throughout the month of October we read everything we could on what our plan would cover, and tried to get the information we needed about the ACA. I was also blown away when I realized that my son’s medical care, he has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), would cost us so much more out of pocket than it was currently costing us. My son has to go to his doctor every other month for his care. If we need to see a therapist we do that monthly, so you see on top of the premiums there are other out of pocket cost we have to factor in. He is also on medication that he takes daily. His medicine is a life saver for him and helps him function like a normal seven year old, without it he can’t focus, his grades slip and his mind literally goes back to the mind of a three or four year old. When he was first put on his medicine his reading went up 20 points and he went from writing one to two sentences to paragraphs, all in the course of a week. He is a straight A student and very bright, but without the proper medical care that could slip away from him. Under our new plan for 2014 we would need to pay a $55.00 co-pay, and then it would be covered at 80 percent once we reached his deductible, which would be $2,000 individual $4,000 family. Out of pocket max numbers are $6,350 individual and $12,700 family. All of this is enough to make anyone’s head spin. We were then forced to look at other options as none of this was affordable for our family.

I started to dig deeper into healthcare.gov. I was hearing all the horror stories through the news about the subpar website. I was reading right off their healthcare.gov Facebook page about other people’s terrible experiences trying to get coverage. Then the government announces that they are going to be working on the site and making it a better experience as well as making it more secure. They had already had three years to make this happen but they said would need the month of November to get it running right. So I waited patiently for them to get the site running so I could see if we would qualify for the subsidy and continue our health insurance through that route.

December 6, 2013 I went to healthcare.gov and started our application. The process took me over two hours to complete. Once it was completed it came back with our results. The results were that my husband and I qualified. That my three year old qualified for All Kids and that my seven year old did not qualify for anything through the exchange (ACA). I was so confused, how could a seven year old not qualify for a subsidy? I was also confused on why they wanted me to enroll one of my children in All Kids? So, I called the number they provided to speak to a representative. I was on hold for 20 minutes when a woman answered and offered to help me with the results. She told me that it is coming back that my seven year old son did not qualify and the only thing I could do was to file an appeal. I asked her a few more questions about how this could have happened, and I was told “she does not know and that all I can do is file an appeal”. She was reading her responses to me right off of a chart that I am sure they are given. So, I ended my conversation with her and proceeded to try to wrap my head around what was happening.

I decided to call back, this time I waited 15 minutes and spoke to a very nice gentleman who seemed to have an understanding for how the system was working. He looked up the results and said “this can’t be right, let’s start over and do an application over the phone”. So again I went through the application process. The results came back the exact same, we all qualified for something except my seven year old son. The gentleman could not understand how this could be happening and assured me it had to be a “glitch” in the system. He placed me on hold so he could speak with his supervisor on how to fix this error. I waited several minutes and when he came back he said “there was nothing more they could do tonight”. He said “we are sending your application to two different departments and that one of the departments would get back to me through a phone call with a fix to this problem”. He also told me “it could take 2-5 days but that I would receive a phone call when they had closed my case”.

So I waited until Tuesday December 10, 2013, which was day four and called them back. I was then told it would be 2-5 business days and if I had not heard from them at that time to call back. So that is what I did, I waited till 9:00 pm on that Friday December 13, 2013 with no phone call. I called Sunday December 15th, 2013 and spoke with my 3rd supervisor who told me “they were very sorry that I had not received a phone call and they were messaging the two departments to give me a call the following day”. He also said to go ahead and file with All Kids in my state because even though they send that information to them, they have no idea when they will receive it. So Monday I went and applied for All Kids for my children, it was a similar application to the healthcare.gov site. I called them to verify that they received my application and was told they cannot access it till sometime in January. They said once they could access it that they would be in touch and if the kids qualified the coverage would retro act to January 1, 2014. So that was a little bit of good news.

So here we are December 22, 2013, the day before the December 23rd deadline to sign up through the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. I decide I will call one last time to see what they can tell me about coverage, since I never received a phone call after my last conversation with a supervisor. I waited on hold for 1 hour and 15 minutes. I asked to speak with a supervisor and I was transferred. The supervisor pulled my file and was talking to me when she must have accidentally pressed a button and we got disconnected. I thought for sure she would call me back. That is one of the first things they ask for is your phone number. I did not receive a call back, so I call back and have to be placed on hold again to speak to someone. I waited another hour and a half before I get connected with a supervisor. She pulls up my file and tells me “there is nothing they can do and I have to wait the 90 days they have to contact me through the appeals process”. The supervisor tells me “that this whole time I have been told wrong by numerous people and that I should have been called back but that the two departments could do nothing for me”. I just have to wait the 90 days. I asked her, “so yet again an error, due to no fault of my own, has occurred all these times I have been calling and speaking with people and no one can really do anything”? She said “yes that is correct, I am sorry you have been told something different but that is all I can tell you”.

I have never been treated so poorly by any insurance company in my whole life. I have never experienced such terrible customer service in all my years on this earth. I can’t imagine how long a company would last in this country if they followed the same protocol as the ACA/Health Insurance Marketplace does. Most companies can fix a glitch in their systems pretty easily, or can connect you to someone who can. Not the ACA/ Health Insurance Marketplace, you spend all that time on hold to just be told, so sorry but you have to wait for someone to get back to you in a 90 day time span.

What is the most sickening thing to me is that we have been forced into the Health Insurance Marketplace’s Exchange. We wanted to continue our coverage through BSBC and pay as we always had been. But, we found out that option would not be affordable under the new Act, which is how we were forced into the Exchange. Furthermore, not only were we forced into the Exchange, but then forced again to submit an application to ALL Kids for our children. I just don’t understand how we go from being hard working middle class family who provides everything for our family to where we are today. I feel like everything that my husband and I have worked hard for is for nothing. I pray each night that we will get something resolved with our “glitch” in the system so our children will have health insurance coverage in January and by the time I have to purchase my son’s $400 a month ADHD medicine.

I really don’t know how our government can allow this to be taking place. What if something happens and one of my boys breaks an arm, or God forbid something worse? They don’t have insurance, so I guess we will then be paying the hospital monthly if that happens. We are almost completely debit free currently and now all I see is very large medical bills in our future until the government can fix the issues with the ACA/Exchange. I would really like them to rename the Affordable Care Act, because from where I am sitting it is anything but affordable or caring for my family.

Sincerely,
Karri Kinder

We who have known something more than out of control spending, debt, unemployment, poverty, government regulation and political correctness saw a different America than most Americans today have seen.

This once-great nation was founded on principles of individual liberty, honor, and being responsible for one’s own family. These were principles taught long ago by the Lord of all humanity, and venerated in all of our teaching for the first 100 years–which coincides with the explosive growth of the American economic system. Everything grew exponentially during that initial time, and nothing could possibly derail the steady progress of our nation, except a menace that began to overtake the earth in the late Nineteenth Century–socialism.

Socialists pandered to the upwardly-mobile working class to gain a power base, promising people rewards for which they had not risked their own labors or capital. Socialism swept through the Soviet Union, then across China, and socialist leaders ordered the murders of millions of “rich,” who in China happened to be anyone with more than 1 acre of land, so that their property could be redistributed. In fact, most of that property was merely seized and kept under the control of the socialist ruling class. No one gained anything more than they had before–except for the leaders.

The family unit, which had been a necessary component of the American nation’s rise from obscurity to global greatness, and indeed, under those principles this nation became great, was seen as an enemy to the spread of socialism. The family unit reminds people of their spiritual nature, and makes family members rely on one another. This is abhorrent to socialists, because the state must be one’s only family, and one’s only god. Indeed, Obama’s socialistic government propaganda teaches American women to be like their “Julia” character, who depends on her husband, the government, for everything she needs, from cradle to grave.

Because Americans were reaping the tremendous rewards of liberty and capitalism for the first 100 years (capitalism is liberty’s economic engine), it was  impossible for socialists to make significant inroads in the US. However, in the early 1900s they began to find weaknesses in America’s working class, and began to infiltrate labor, then government. Their plan was simple–exploit the weak and the ignorant–by creating a sub-class of American citizens and by taking over the education system and media outlets.

Progressives, as they called themselves, fought civil rights for America’s blacks, forcing the newly liberated (by Republicans) citizens into long-term poverty. When Republicans tried to force through voting and other civil rights for blacks and other minorities, it wasn’t until Progressives adopted them as poster children for vastly expanded government spending that they went along with these Republican ideals, now claiming that they were the ones who had fought for civil rights. That promised liberty was never realized, however, because Progressives immediately used the underclass they had created to begin pulling the entire capitalist nation down with the Great Society they  launched in 1964.

It is now the end of 2013 and in a very short time we have seen our country go from wealth to poverty, from morality to immorality, from Christian to agnostic; and what do we have to show for these ‘progressive’ inroads? As we said at the outset, we have an ignorant nation with no understanding of where we came from or how we got to be the greatest nation in the world. Our teachers and journalists have re-educated our children and rewritten our history to the point that the man on the street believes the KKK was made up of Republicans, no one has to pay for gifts given by a generous government,  and guns should be banned because they are abused at times.

I, like a fellow Republican, have a dream. One in which morality and reality retake their rightful place at the head of the Christmas table. Where the Lord Jesus Christ is our only Sovereign, and those whom we elect are public servants who diligently toil to uphold our Constitution and protect and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. My dream is that our children will learn nobility through selflessness, instead of what they learn from these self-centered, self-serving socialists who have infiltrated our fair nation and brought it to the brink of total bankruptcy–economic and moral.

My wish for Christmas is that my fellow Americans, brothers and sisters of every race, color and creed, will look back to see where we came from and how we got here, and join me in restoring this nation to its former glory–before the socialists took it over and prepared it for final destruction.

Surely, an enemy hath done this. He who has an ear, let him hear.

PUBLIUS

Have you heard the joke about the family of duck hunters that took down an entire billion-dollar TV network?

It’s no joke. A&E just stepped in duck poop. They made the biggest mistake in the history of Hollywood – they showed us how leftists in Hollywood (and D.C.) really think.

And America said, “DUCK YOU!”

That has to make tyrants and control freaks like Obama, Hollywood, and the leftist thought police scared to death.

Something amazing is happening in America. An awakening. More people showed support for the star of “Duck Dynasty” in 24 hours than signed up for Obamacare in its first few months. Which means at this point in time, Americans are starting to come to the conclusion we’d be better off with a duck hunter in the White House than Obama. Heck, we couldn’t possibly do any worse.

In other words, the tables have turned and middle America is waking up from the shock, disarray, intimidation and distractions of the Obama years. It’s amazing to even say it out loud, but middle America, conservatives, and…gulp…Christians are coming out of the closet.

A duck hunter has inspired us.

What they are saying out loud is, “We have rights too. We deserve free speech too. We’ve had enough of your oppression and intolerance towards our values and beliefs- and we’re NOT going to take it anymore.”

This Nov. 7, 2013 file photo shows Phil Robertson, the Duck Commander, holding the 1 millionth duck call assembled for 2013 at company’s warehouse in West Monroe, La. (AP Photo, The News-Star/Margaret Croft)

A&E claims the “indefinite suspension” (ie firing) of Phil Robertson is about “branding.” What they are insinuating is they couldn’t possibly allow a close-minded, Neanderthal gay basher to remain as the face of their billion dollar brand.

Well guess what? The new brand for A&E is “the Christian-hating, Bible-bashing, intolerant TV network.”

Sorry, but that brand won’t sell. The brand of intolerance towards Christians, in a nation still dominated by Christians who actually believe in God, guns and the Bible, is not a viable brand. In other words, the tables have turned and A&E is “DUCKED.”

Let me first explain my background. I’m a lifelong Republican conservative. My heroes are Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. I’m a leading conservative commentator and bestselling conservative author of “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.”

Yet I’ve always differed from my fellow conservatives on one issue – gay rights. Like my hero Barry Goldwater, I have no problem with gays. Goldwater is the father of the modern day conservative movement, yet he too was pro-gay rights. He once said of gays in the military, “I don’t care if they’re straight, I only care if they shoot straight.”

Ronald Reagan was also open-minded towards gays, as a result of a lifetime spent in Hollywood in the acting business. I’ve always been pro-gay rights. I believe what people do in their private bedrooms is none of government’s business.

But this isn’t a gay rights issue. The firing of Phil Robertson, star of “Duck Dynasty” is a free speech issue. It’s symbolic of the biased, one-sided way the media and leftist elites treat free speech. People have every right to express opinions considered “progressive” or “politically correct” nowadays. But the same rules don’t apply to salt-of-the-earth, apple-pie, middle Americans who believe in God, country, guns, and yes, the Bible.

You mean Christians and conservatives don’t have the right to free speech just like Hollywood leftists?  You mean Christians or conservatives don’t have the right to express their views in the workplace, without fearing for their jobs?

Phil Robertson only expressed his personal opinions. Those opinions are shared by millions of Christians not only in America, but across the globe. Agree or disagree, he had every right to express that opinion, without losing his job. I may disagree with the exact words he chose, but I stand arm-in-arm with Phil to support his right to say it.

Oh by the way, Phil is a reality TV star. His success and popularity is based on his opinions. A&E fired a reality star for having controversial opinions? Are you kidding me? I suggest A&E executives need to visit a psychiatrist’s couch.

The Duck Dynasty scandal is about intolerance. But the intolerance is on part of Hollywood and A&E. The star of a reality show is allowed to have opinions. If you don’t like them, you have no right to ban them. That’s tyrant’s behavior. That’s McCarthyism. That’s the attitude of police states we find in countries run by tyrants like Stalin, or Fidel Castro, or Huge Chavez, or the old East Germany. Is this what America has become under Obama?

I don’t have to agree with Phil Robertson to stand behind him. I support free speech. If it can happen to Phil, it can happen to anyone of us. I’m a TV and radio personality. I have opinions. I won’t change them, or back down. If you don’t like them, change the channel. That’s called FREEDOM.

Defenders of A&E and Hollywood claim this is about “branding.” They say a private business (like A&E) has the right to decide it’s brand and fire anyone hurting its brand.

That would be true if this was a fair two-way street. I too support private property rights for business owners (like me) to run our businesses anyway we want. Only the CEO should decide who works for his company, not government.

But this is not the way the rules currently work in America. Because if any private business said “I won’t serve a customer because of his race or sexual orientation”- would that decision be allowed by government?

If a businessman, in his own private business, decided to fire any employee that supports gay marriage, would that decision be allowed? If a CEO fired employees because they were atheist, would that decision be allowed? If a CEO fired a woman because she was an outspoken supporter of abortion, would that decision stand?

How about if a CEO concerned about his brand said, “You’re fired because your outspoken support of gay rights is killing my business”- would that decision be allowed?

More specifically, how about a TV network firing the star of a reality TV show because they made remarks in an interview supporting abortion or gay marriage or stem cell research. Would government, courts, or Hollywood accept that decision? Leftists and gay rights organizations would beg government to intervene. And we’d see $100 million class action lawsuits galore.

So it’s a lie to say that private businesses have a right to fire who they want. The law is only used to protect leftist and “progressive” views. This was never about “branding.” It was about the shock and horror when people who drink Obama-Kool-Aid realized that their biggest TV star actually believes in something they don’t. They had to rush to silence him.

Why? Because Obama, Hollywood and the leftists are petrified of free thought. They keep their modern day Tammany Hall going through intimidation. They cannot afford to allow conservative or Christian values to be affirmed by a pop culture celebrity- for fear it might start a trend. It might stir up the masses. It might encourage conservatives to speak out. It might embolden Christians to quote the Bible without fear. Hollywood cannot allow that. Americans might actually be inspired to fight back. Someone might escape the thought-police plantation.

A duck hunter may have just lit the spark that started a revolution. Phil Robertson just went from TV phenomenon to American hero. Americans are now unchained. We are free to speak our minds. Here’s what we have to say to control freak tyrants like Obama the Hollywood elite thought police.

“DUCK YOU!”

By Wayne Allyn Root, The Blaze

With the Dec. 23 deadline looming for signing up for health insurance under ObamaCare, consumers rushing to purchase new coverage may be in for a rude shock if they focus principally on finding the least expensive premiums, according to experts.

That’s because many people buying coverage on the federal exchanges either to replace old policies or to obtain coverage for the first time could get hit with deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs much higher than is typical in employer-sponsored health plans.

Perhaps more importantly, they may find themselves excluded from some of the best hospitals in the country and their affiliated doctors.

Deductible Sticker Shock

Gail Wilensky, a senior fellow for Project HOPE and the Medicare director for the first Bush Administration, said on Monday that consumers should be as mindful of deductibles and the hospitals and doctors in network as the monthly premium costs in shopping around.

“What you’re buying is not just the benefits specified in the law but whom you will have access to in getting the service delivered,” she said in an interview. Many of the policies being offered on the federal and state exchanges carry annual deductibles that often top $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a couple, according to The New York Times.

“Right now, most of the focus has been on the cost of the monthly premium and occasionally people have remembered to . . .look at what the deductible and the co-insurance is, because that is as important as the premium,” she added. “Whether a hospital is in or out of network is really the third piece: don’t forget to look at what you’re buying.”

Like most insurance policies, the lower the premium the higher the deductible. For example, in El Paso, Tex., for a couple both age 35, one of the cheapest plans on the federal exchange, offered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, has a premium of less than $300 a month but an annual deductible of more than $12,000, according to the Times. In the case of a 45-year-old couple purchasing insurance on the federal exchange in Saginaw, Mich., a policy with a premium of $515 a month carries a deductible of $10,000 a year.

Some of the Best Hospitals Are Off Limits
Americans purchasing health insurance on the federal and state exchanges may be in for an even bigger shock when they discover some of the best hospitals in the country out of reach, even when those hospitals were previously available to them under their personal policies. That’s because most of the top hospitals in the country will accept insurance from only one or two companies operating under Obamacare.

Obamacare regulations and government subsidies are likely to make insurance more affordable for millions of Americans, as President Obama and senior aides have repeatedly boasted. But many insurers have responded to Obamacare caps on premiums by offering top-tier hospitals and physicians far less money for services rendered. And they’re responding by strictly limiting the number of policies they will accept.

Watchdog.org  recently looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014 – contacting each hospital to determine their contracts and policies. The government watchdog group found that many of the best hospitals in the country were simply opting out of Obamacare – much to the detriment of people in search of the best or most specialized health care.

Both Ohio and California have a dozen insurance companies on their exchanges, yet two of the states’ premier hospitals — Cleveland Clinic and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center — have only one company in their respective networks.

A few, such as top rated Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, are mandated under state law to accept all insurance companies. Other than that, the hospital with the largest number of insurance companies is University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland with just four. Fully 11 of the 18 hospitals had just one or two carriers, according to Watchdog.org.

Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new health care exchanges in New York, Texas and California will not offer patients access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York City or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centers, according to the Financial Times.

“We shouldn’t be surprised by this,” Wilensky said. “There was a lot of pressure that exchanges placed on insurance plans to keep premiums low, and the benefits are specified in law for each of the four levels of health care plans. If the benefits are specified and the premiums are pressed low – sometimes lower than the insurance companies thought was appropriate, a major way to try to accommodate that financial pressure is to limit the number of physicians and hospitals.”

“And by limiting the number of physicians and hospitals, you may get those that you include to accept a lower reimbursement,” she added.

Consumers have until Dec. 23 to enroll in new health insurance under Obamacare to qualify for coverage beginning Jan. 1. However, open enrollment will continue through the end of March.

Enroll America, the group leading efforts to enroll Americans in ObamaCare, is facing accusations again that it has violated its tax-exempt nonprofit status by engaging in partisan politics — following the release of a video in which a top official seems to brag about his political connections.

The complaint was filed Friday by the group with the IRS.

In the video, Christopher Tarango, a communications director for the group, says: “I’m doing Enroll America right now. But I’m also, I shouldn’t be saying this, but I’m also helping out with HD 50, so that’s as partisan as it gets.

“There’s a lot of talent that got sucked into Organizing for Action. I mean, there’s a lot of talent that got sucked into Enroll America, but we are all Obama people.”

Tarango was referring to a Texas House race when he says “HD 50,” in the video, secretly record by Project Veritas in an Austin coffee shop on Nov. 8, according to Cause of Action.

Tarango also seems to be telling an actor posing as a Democratic political operative that he might be able to help in a deal to sell ObamaCare applicant information, after first rejecting the notion.

He suggests he knows a high-ranking company official “well enough that, to feel like if we had a few beers, this would not be the craziest conversation that he’s ever heard.”

Cause of Action — a self-described nonprofit, nonpartisan government accountability group — also wrote a letter Nov. 13 to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott asking him in part to evaluate whether entities such as Enroll America and Battleground Texas have violated the IRS code and his state’s laws.

The letter followed at least one other video by the conservative group Project Veritas and called into question the validity of so-called “navigators” that help Americans sign up for ObamaCare.

“Despite its claims of serving the public good, it appears that Enroll America has abused its tax-exempt status by using donor contributions for political and other impermissible purposes,” the group said Friday.

Cause of Action also argues Tarango’s comments indicate Enroll is “engaging in political activity by coordinating with the pro-President Obama group Organizing for Action, a 501(c)(4) organization.

Battleground Texas is a 527 political action committee. The letter this week to the IRS suggests some people who helped get Obama elected in 2012 are now with that group.

This is the second IRS complaint filed by the Cause of  Action against Enroll American.

The group filed the first complaint in July, asking the IRS to investigate Enroll America’s tax status due to failing to operate for a charitable purpose.

The group purportedly collected $3.8 million in donations just in 2011.

This spring, House Republicans started a probe into Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius soliciting donations from companies her agency might regulate, to help sign up uninsured Americans for ObamaCare.

Sebelius asked charitable foundations, businesses executives, churches and doctors to donate money to Enroll America and other nonprofits that are helping to implement Obama’s health care overhaul.

The agency has said there is a special section within the Public Health Services Act that allows the secretary to solicit financial support for nonprofit organizations conducting public health work.

I have read a number of articles discussing the most recent Hollywood installment of The Hunger Games — Catching Fire — and am astonished that they appear to entirely miss the point of the story.

A recent opinion article on FoxNews.com by Sandra Lee Dixon bemoans the violence against children depicted in the series, and this book in particular, sharing her opinion:

Supporters say the themes that arise are important for the national conversation: the world is not always nice, children need to learn about war and destruction, and artists can help us experience such things vicariously and discuss them. My take: there is more admirable literature that already addresses these themes.

We don’t need the overt violence and the panicked faces of the characters for a coming of age story to teach us to say no to excesses of wealth and power.

Sandra entirely misses the point of the story. It is not to promote a national dialog on violence or the evils of concentrated wealth, or even their destructive influences on society’s children.

Indeed, societies and nations where widespread violence exists are horrible places for all humanity, and especially heinous for children. The nationalization of violence is especially prominent where totalitarian governments control–exactly as depicted in The Hunger Games.

In this story, the democratic republic of the United States of America has been usurped by a totalitarian regime–one which controls every aspect of American’s lives: the economy, health care, food distribution, labor, production, etc.  Does any of this sound familiar? At some point in the story’s past, the government took over total control, dictating where citizens could live, what they could produce, what they could eat, and what activities they could engage in.  Anything familiar yet? There is no way to fight against the government, because all weapons have been taken from the citizens, and only the government can have them.  Anything? How about this–friends of the regime share its power and control of the masses, and have access to the wealth created by the citizens through over-taxation and confiscation of their property.

The bottom line is that the Hunger Games is an accurate portrayal of a controlling totalitarian government and its elite ruling class in our own future if we continue on the path we were currently pursuing. The only question is this: will we rise up and overthrow tyrants as they are in the process of usurping our constitutional form of government, or will we wait until it is too late and the struggle is nearly impossible–as it is in The Hunger Games?

PUBLIUS

Republican lawmakers are pushing back hard against the Obama administration’s decision to delay next year’s open enrollment season for health coverage under ObamaCare until after the 2014 midterm elections.

The Department of Health and Human Services announced Friday it would allow consumers to start signing up for coverage under ObamaCare on Nov. 15, 2014, a month later than originally scheduled. The change does not affect those trying to enroll this year.

Congressional Republicans accused the administration of shifting the dates for political reasons, to hide a spike in 2015 premiums, though information may already be available about 2015 premiums before the elections on Nov. 4.

“That means that if premiums go through the roof in the first year of ObamaCare, no one will know about it until after the election,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement. “This is clearly a cynical political move by the Obama administration to use extra-regulatory, by any means necessary tools to keep this program afloat and hide key information from voters.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., accused the White House of moving next year’s open enrollment date to shield Democrats up for reelection next year who supported the law.

“The only American consumers this change will help are Democratic politicians who voted for Obamacare, because it delays disclosure of some of the law’s most insidious effects until after the election,” Alexander said in a statement.

He said he plans to introduce legislation that would require insurers to provide Americans with “proper notice” of premium increases before open enrollment period on the exchanges starts.

The administration says the change is to allow insurers more time to prepare and submit premiums.

“This change is good news for consumers, who will have more time to learn about plans before enrolling and an open enrollment period that’s a week longer,” an HHS official told Fox News.

This year, 17 states and Washington, D.C., posted the data publicly ahead of the administration. “We’ll definitely start seeing some premiums earlier from state insurance departments,” said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

However, there is one possible way that Democrats could benefit politically. If lighting strikes twice and the website sputters again during the next open enrollment season, that second act would not take place until after the voting is done.

Separately, the administration also announced a small schedule change in this year’s open enrollment season, pushing that deadline to Dec. 23. The administration has rebuffed calls to delay or extend the current enrollment period beyond March 31, 2014.

A new and independent analysis of ObamaCare warns of a ticking time bomb, predicting a second wave of 50 million to 100 million insurance policy cancellations next fall — right before the mid-term elections.

The next round of cancellations and premium hikes is expected to hit employees, particularly of small businesses. While the administration has tried to downplay the cancellation notices hitting policyholders on the individual market by noting they represent a relatively small fraction of the population, the swath of people who will be affected by the shakeup in employer-sponsored coverage will be much broader.

An analysis by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, shows the administration anticipates half to two-thirds of small businesses would have policies canceled or be compelled to send workers onto the ObamaCare exchanges. They predict up to 100 million small and large business policies could be canceled next year.

“The impact I’m mostly worried about is on small young, entrepreneurial firms that will suddenly face much higher health insurance premiums if they want to offer health insurance to their employees,” said AEI resident scholar Stan Veuger. “I think for a lot of other businesses … they can just send their employees to the exchanges or offer them a fixed subsidy every month to buy health insurance themselves.”

Under the health care law, businesses with fewer than 50 workers do not have to provide health coverage. But if they do, the policies will still have to meet the benefit standards set by ObamaCare.

As reported by AEI’s Scott Gottlieb, some businesses got around this by renewing their policies before the end of 2013. But the relief is temporary, and they are expected to have to offer in-compliance plans for 2015. According to Gottlieb, that means beginning in October 2014 the cancellation notices will start to go out.

Then, businesses will have to either find a new plan — which could be considerably more expensive — or send workers onto the ObamaCare exchanges.

For workers, their experience could mirror that of the 5 million or so on the individual market who already received cancellation notices because their plans did not meet new standards under the Affordable Care Act.

President Obama announced last week that insurance companies could offer out-of-compliance plans for another year. But that only means the cancellation notices will resume late next year.

The business community has already been hit with another side effect from ObamaCare. Because the law will require businesses with more than 50 full-time workers to offer health coverage, there are reports that companies are shifting employees to part-time status to avoid hitting the threshold.

Though the administration describes these accounts as anecdotal — and has already delayed the employer mandate by a year — studies suggest otherwise.

The International Franchise Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have studied the impact and say the president’s health care law has resulted in higher costs and fewer full-time positions.

A survey showed 31 percent of franchise businesses, and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses, have already reduced worker hours. It also showed 27 percent of franchise businesses, and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses, have replaced full-time workers with part-time employees.