The DNC Just Effed Up! (Reactionary Leftists)

Mark Levin slams the choice by Tom Perez to sue the Trump admin. This opens up soo much legalities (counter lawsuits, discovery, depositions, and the like) that will allow the Republicans and the Trump administration to focus on the Clinton Foundation, the Steele Dossier, and all the other avenues that Democrats used to try and stop Trump from being nominated (and their attempts to impeach him) — even Bernie Sanders.

Because the Democrats are soo reactionary and trying to please their base…. this action was not thought through well. Which is a political plus for our side.

Main Stream Media Blames Schumer For Failed Shutdown

Larry Elder goes through an interview where CNN’s Brooke Baldwin presses Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) about what the Democrats got in return for shutting down the government. Even Brooke Baldwin is taken back by the spin. Other clips from CNN show that the onus lays at Schumer’s feet… what I mean by that is when you have lost CNN, you know you are in deep doo-doo.

WOW, Just WOW… Leaked DNC Emails and the Holocaust

The DAILY CALLER has this awful update on the leaked DNC emails:

DNC Staffers Annoyed At Having To Commemorate The Holocaust

On May 5, 2016, Florida Rep. and then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent an email to two of her Congressional staffers as well as two DNC employees — newly-hired director of Jewish engagement Aaron Weinberg and senior communications director Ryan Banfill.

“We need to do a statement from the DNC. Is there a reason we haven’t?” Wasserman Schultz asked in the email, which had the subject line “Yom Hashoah statement.” Yom Hashoah, which is also known as Holocaust Memorial Day, began the evening of May 4 and ended the followed evening, May 5.

[….]

“We aren’t going to do statements for every Jewish holiday unless she wants to do them for every religious holiday and trust me, this Catholic can give you a list of them,” Houghton replied. “Also when she does an official statement it makes very little sense to have two statements out there in her voice.”

Banfill appeared to send a tongue-in-cheek response: “This is about remembering the Holocaust. Never forget.”

“Yup… or Darfur or Armenia or Rwanda or Bosnia (which PS is where my husband served),” Houghton replied. “Does she want us to do one for each other those remembrance days as well?”

Elsewhere in the WikiLeaks email dump, DNC CFO Brad Marshall accused Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders of being an atheist who skates by on his Jewish heritage….

(read it all)

 

DNC Email Leaks Just the Beginning! (UPDATED AGAIN)

D Delete DNC Emails CLEAR 698

RED STATE has a good summary of the emails so far (more are to be dumped):

Here’s a breakdown from The Hill, one of the first sites to cover the leak:

“The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace [sic] Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails),” the site advertises.

WikiLeaks is presenting the emails as a searchable database, complete with an optional spam filter.

The emails span from last January to the end of May.

And here’s a good starting summary from The Next Web:

Contained inside was evidence of collusion against Bernie Sanders by party officials,fake Craigslist ads targeting Donald Trump and “off the record” information shared with reporters in hopes that it wouldn’t remain off the record. The emails are just part of the “Hillary Leaks” Wikileaks plans to share in the coming days and weeks. Additionally, you’ll find details of DNC CEO Amy Dacey outlining a plan to bring upBernie Sanders’ religionto sway a largely christian populace as well as details about what dollar amount you’ll need to donate to get that oh-so-valuableface time with Hillary Clinton.

Make sure to click on those links. You’ll thank me.

Red State goes on to discuss some of the other topics in this release. SNOPES is even publishing topics from the emails!

Like I said, more are coming! Make sure you follow ROARK on Twitter fort updates.

UPDATE!

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Dropped From Convention After WikiLeaks Scandal

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee has been dropped from the party’s lineup of convention speakers following WikiLeaks’ release of explosive DNC emails showing members of the organization actively working against the Bernie Sanders campaign.

A Democratic insider told CNN that Schultz has been dropped from the lineup to “keep the peace” within the party, amid calls from Sanders’ campaign manager for someone at the DNC to be “held accountable” for the anti-Sanders collusion seen in the leaked emails….

AGAIN!

DNC Platform Makes Global Warming Skepticism Criminal!

(The above video is from the DAILY CALLER’S post on the subject.) GAY PATRIOT notes the following:

The first rule of a fanatical cult is that you are not allowed to question the teachings of the fanatical cult.

The reason for this has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics….

(read more)

 

Hillary Clinton Joins DNC Chair In Obfuscating Terms (+ Chuck Schumer)

Gateway Pundit notes the following about the above:

The Right Scoop reports:

In a completely softball interview with “Hardball” host, ironically, Chris Matthews, Hillary awkwardly side-stepped his question on what the difference is between being a socialist and being a Democrat.

Democrats claim Reagan wouldn’t be accepted in today’s Republican Party. Do they really think JFK would be accepted by today’s Democrats? Fat chance.

Remember this question to the DNC head?

HotAir connects the obfuscation…

By this time, Chris Matthews must be panicked. When he asked DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to explain the difference between Democrats and socialists, the MSNBC host expressed considerable angst that the party’s leading officer couldn’t do so. “I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews lamented at the time.

Fast forward five months. Matthews posed the question to the party’s leading candidate for its presidential nomination, and … Hillary Clinton couldn’t explain it either.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Wants To Control Language (Orwellian)

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY:

Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz suggested last week that the term “ObamaCare” was disparaging and shouldn’t be allowed on the House floor:

House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning’s debate over whether to defund last year’s healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law “ObamaCare.”

After two House Republicans called it “ObamaCare,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these “disparaging” remarks should be allowed on the House floor.

“That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that,” she said.

I’ve found myself referring to the health care reform law in different ways depending on the context or mood of the post I’m writing. Sometimes, it’s appropriate to use the legal name of the bill, but as James Joyner pointed out a couple months ago, that’s as much a product of political propaganda as the term Obamacare is:

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a great example of propagandistic bill naming.  What heartless bastard could oppose protecting patients?  And who doesn’t want care to be affordable?  That the act in question will provide very little in the way of protection and even less to ensure affordability, though, makes it a rather silly name.   And PPACA doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue as an acronym or initialism.

ObamaCare, by contrast, is short, memorable, and nonjudgmental.  It has a nice parallelism with Medicare, a very popular program with similar goals, and correctly identifies the president who pushed it through Congress.   And, even as one who opposed Obama’s election and the passage of this act, the term “ObamaCare” doesn’t conjure up negative imagery.

Indeed. Besides, who could think that “ObamaCare” is disparaging? It’s got “Obama” and “Care” in there….

From The Hill:


House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning’s debate over whether to defund last year’s healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law “ObamaCare.”

After two House Republicans called it “ObamaCare,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these “disparaging” remarks should be allowed on the House floor.

“That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that,” she said.

Because Wasserman Schultz only asked if it would be appropriate to curb the use of the term “ObamaCare,” the chairman said he would not rule on a hypothetical. But he did urge members to “refrain from engaging in personalities or descriptions about personalities in general.”

The indirect warning had no effect on Republicans. Rep. Denny Rehberg (Mont.), who sponsored the amendment to defund the law, said he refers to it as ObamaCare and said, “You would think he wants his name attached to his signature legislation.

“So we call it what it is,” he continued. “It is ObamaCare. It’s a travesty. It is big government. It is not controlling healthcare costs, and it needs to be repealed and today we’re going to try to defund it to the best of our ability. And if we’re not successful this time, we’re going to try again and again and again until we either have a Senate that’s willing to pass it or a president that understands that we cannot do this to the American people.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) followed Rehberg, and within minutes also called the law “ObamaCare.”

No One Guaranteed You that Your Premium Would Not Increase

(American Thinker) Everyone in America who isn’t brain dead – or lying – knows exactly what the president meant when he said we could keep our doctor if we wanted to. And I suspect even those who are brain dead know why he said it; in tandem with the promise we could keep our insurance plans, the promise that we could keep our family doctor was necessary for the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Without those two promises, it would have been open season on the bill and even many Democrats would have run for cover.

Crafted with lies. Voted on with lies. Sold with lies. And implemented with lies. Why should Emanuel’s lies surprise us?

Also, one can watch for themselves eight leading Democrats promising lower costs for healthcare: Rahm Emanuel, Henry Waxman, Ben Nelson, Kathleen Sebelius, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama — as examples of people who DID promise lower costs/premiums.

Mr. Emanuel is wontingly and knowingly lying as well. Below is a short video of the internal battle in Democrats own lives, with the example of Pelosi being against larger premiums before she was for them.

California as an example of where all these promises breakdown:

(Breaitbart) …An estimated 70% of California doctors will not participate in the Obamacare-compliant health insurance policies offered by Covered California, according to the California Medical Association, as reported by the Washington Examiner. Though Covered California claims that 85% of doctors will participate, many doctors listed as participating are expected to decline payment, having learned that reimbursements will be very low.

The shortage of physicians was already expected to be a challenge for Obamacare, given that millions of new patients would potentially be demanding medical services. However, that shortage may now be even more acute than expected, particularly in Obamacare’s flagship state. Reimbursement rates in California for federal programs like Medicare were already among the lowest in the nation, the Examiner‘s Richard Pollock notes.

Not only is this a stress — financially — on states, but it is gonna undermine Obamacare… because in order for the bill to work, people have to sign up under the exchanges. Which is not the case:

(Gateway Pundit) Over 396,000 Americans signed up for Medicaid since October. Only 106,185 signed up for private insurance during the same time period. The Bell News reported:

Yesterday I pointed out how Medicaid enrollment is proving my theory to be true as more individuals are signing up for Medicaid than they are for Private insurance in almost every state, except one.

According to an article on thectmirror.com, Connecticut is the only state in the union who is signing up more people for Private insurance than for Medicaid…

Broke as a Joke

State officials who attended the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) annual conference in New Orleans, La. earlier this month expect Medicaid costs to rise dramatically as a result of ObamaCare.

As it is, Medicaid currently accounts for about 17 percent of all state-level spending, according to StateHealthFacts.org. This exceeds what states spend on higher education and transportation put together, according to ALEC.

Under ObamaCare, states are required to extend their Medicaid programs to anyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level come 2014. This comes out to about $30,000 for a family of four. In addition to the Medicaid expansion, the new federal health care law also creates an individual health insurance mandate, which will further encourage those who were already eligible for benefits prior to the new legislation to now enroll. Moreover, the federal subsidies included as part of the new health care law will not cover the entire cost of the Medicaid expansion.

“Washington [D.C.] is trying to take control of everything and that’s not healthy for anyone,” said Rep. Noble Ellington, a Louisiana Republican. “We are already in the middle of a recession as it is, and if ObamaCare does kick in it will mean less jobs, less business activity and less opportunity.”…. (NetRight Daily)

The New York Post notes this ObamaCare created Medicaid time bomb:

The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.

The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.

Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year.

Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending. Within the next few years, those three programs will eat up more than half of federal expenditures.

And it’s going to get worse. Congress has shown no ability to reform Social Security or Medicare. With ObamaCare adding to Medicare spending, we are picking up speed on the road to insolvency.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, in part because of ObamaCare, Medicaid spending will more than double over the next 10 years, topping $554 billion by 2023.

And that is just federal spending.

State governments pay another $160 billion for Medicaid today. For most states, Medicaid is the single-largest cost of government, crowding out education, transportation and everything else.

…read more…

PJ Media also points out that many well-off (rich) people are pushed onto Medicaid:

The Affordable Care Act eliminates Medicaid’s asset test, and creates the roach motel of government welfare programs. Medicaid is no longer an “entitlement” you can choose to access. Instead, as Nicole Hopkins’ mother found out earlier this month, if you qualify under its new, lenient rules, HealthCare.gov forces your enrollment:

We checked and double-checked the information, but the only option still appeared to be Medicaid. She suggested clicking on “Apply for Coverage,” thinking that other options might appear.

Instead, almost mockingly, her “Eligibility Results” came back: “Congratulations, we received and reviewed your application and determined [you] will receive the health care coverage listed below: Washington Apple Health (the state of Washington’s version of Medicaid).”

[….]

The page lacked a cancel button or any way to opt out of Medicaid. It was done; she was enrolled, and there was nothing to do but click “Next” and then to sign out.

So Medicaid is now mandatory for those who apply at HealthCare.gov and qualify — and as long as your income remains sufficiently low, you can never leave. Never mind if you believe, as Ms. Hopkins does, that “other people should (not) have to pay for my care, whether it be through taxes or otherwise.”

Beyond that, with the asset test gone, the web site forces even well-off households into the program, as long as their “Modified Adjusted Gross Income” is at or below 100 percent of the poverty level in states which have chosen not to take federal bribes to expand the program, and 138 percent in states which have.

This has led to the following “you can’t make up something this stupid” situation:

The father owns a $5 million house – entirely paid for. His kids attend expensive private schools. He owns three cars, but because he has earned his fortune and has stopped working, and his wife’s new start-up business has yet to produce an income stream, he is considered by the HealthCare.gov website to have no income.

The website put him on Medicaid.

There are no other options. This — not President Barack Obama’s “if you like your plan-doctor-provider, you can keep your plan-doctor-provider” — is how HealthCare.gov has been designed to work.

Obamacare is making our healthcare system sick… and it is not yet fully implemented!