Saturday, April 30, 2016

Was Princess Diana Assassinated?


The Huge Secret That Princess Diana Knew
Published on Apr 4, 2016
By: David Icke – From the book “The Biggest Secret”

Author Alan Power: "Prince Philip had MI6 murder Princess Diana!"  
Published on Nov 19, 2014

WHO KILLED DIANA? - Best Video On This Subject  
Published on Sep 6, 2014

The Real Reason Why Princess Diana Was Assassinated. Ex MI Agent Testifies  
Uploaded on Dec 26, 2011
Conspiracy Theory Thursday—The Princess Diana Death Conspiracy
Helen Thomas
Posted on 10/29/2015
The Princess Diana Death Conspiracy theory first popped up within hours of the tragic, unexpected death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997—and the theory just isn’t going away.
It is over a decade and a half since the world woke up to the shocking news that 36-year-old Princess Diana had been involved in a fatal car accident.
The crash happened just after midnight on August 31, when the Mercedes carrying a divorced Diana and her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, 42,  careered out of control in a Paris tunnel.  They had just left the Ritz Hotel which is owned by Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed and were en route to Dodi’s apartment.  They were accompanied by two members of the Al Fayed staff.
Both the driver of the vehicle, Henri Paul and Dodi were killed instantly when the vehicle spun out of control.  Diana survived for just over three hours before succumbing to her injuries, and Trevor Rees-Jones, Al Fayed’s bodyguard was injured, but survived.
The initial blame lay firmly with the pack of paparazzi who were chasing the vehicle, however official investigators subsequently concluded that the driver, Henri Paul was drunk and speeding at the time of the crash, resulting in his loss of control.
The Theory
The overriding theory is that Princess Diana was killed deliberately by the British secret service,  MI6 to prevent her from marrying Dodi Fayed, bearing his child—a step sibling to a future king—and becoming a Muslim.  This would have embarrassed and de-stabilised the monarchy could not be allowed to happen.
It is alleged that just after the black Mercedes entered the winding Pont de l’Alma tunnel, a black motorbike and two cars (one dark, one white) followed into the tunnel in a tight formation.
The white car approached and clipped the Mercedes, pushing it off line and allowing the motorbike to surge ahead.  There was then a flash of light—a strobe—followed by a thunderous bang as the Mercedes slammed into the tunnel’s 13th pillar.
The motorbike stopped and the passenger got off and peered inside the vehicle.  He then turned to his partner and raised his arms into an X: the military signal for “mission accomplished” before speeding off.
The “Proof”
Lack of CCTV images.  There were more than 14 CCTV cameras in the underpass yet astonishingly, none recorded footage of the fatal collision.
Neither Diana nor Dodi were wearing seat belts at the time of the crash, prompting speculation that the vehicle may have been sabotaged.  Diana ALWAYS wore her seat belt when travelling in the back of a vehicle.  Tragically, it has been confirmed that had the couple been wearing their seat belts, both would have survived the crash.
The white Fiat Uno—the unidentified white car was seen to collide with the Mercedes at the entrance of the tunnel.  There was white paint found on the Mercedes, proving that the cars had come into contact.  The Fiat Uno was never officially found. Eye-witnesses Georges and Sabine Dauzonne saw the vehicle emerging from the tunnel and said that the driver of the car seemed perturbed by something in his rear-view mirror.  They identified former security guard Le Van Thanh as that man. Forensic tests confirmed that paint and rubber on Thanh’s car matched traces found on the Mercedes, but French police ruled him out of the investigation for some reason.
Former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson‘s sworn testimony.  Tomlinson testified that;
In the years leading up to the fatal crash, MI6 used a paid informant in the security department of the Ritz Hotel.  He concludes that this informant was Henri Paul.
In 1992 he was shown documents of an outline plan to assassinate the Serbian leader President Slobodan Milosevic while he was being driven.  The plan involved an almost identical scenario to the crash that killed Diana—using a strobe light to disorientate the driver of the vehicle; ensuring the crash took place in a tunnel were the close proximity to concrete walls/pillars ensured the maximum damage plus it was noted that a tunnel would yield fewer casual witnesses.
One member of the paparazzi who routinely followed Diana was a member of “UKN“. A small group of part-time MI6 agents who provide ad-hoc services to MI6, such as surveillance and photography.  It is not known whether the undercover pap was present at the time of the fatal incident.
Tomlinson has been subjected to intimidation tactics ever since he raised his theories, including being arrested and deported on his arrival at JFK for an appearance on NBC—on the instruction of the CIA.
A former soldier identified only as ‘Soldier N’ claimed that MI6 had help from the military service in engineering the crash. The former British special forces sniper told both his former wife and in-laws that the SAS (British Special Air Service) commando unit was behind the deaths and also the cover up.
Author Alan Power wrote a book, The Princess Diana Conspiracy with the aid of another former SAS soldier. In the book he confirms that Diana was killed by MI6 with military aid.  He claims the existence of the secret assassination squad called “The Increment Team”, and corroborates Tomlinson’s assertions.
Eye-witness Francois Levistre said that a flash of white light was directed at the couple’s vehicle, causing the crash.  He then said he had stopped near the tunnel’s exit and saw the motorcycle passenger get off, look inside the crumpled vehicle and make a hand gesture to the bike’s driver before they sped off.
The letter Diana wrote to her butler Paul Burrell in 1993.  Burrell hid the letter from investigators, fearful that it would never see the light of day.  In the letter, Diana warned; “This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry.” Clearly prophetic.
Princess Diana with her butler Paul Burrell
Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed alleges that Diana was pregnant at the time of the accident. He claims that Diana broke this news to him in a phone call on August 31.  Diana’s body was embalmed with inordinate and illegal haste after her death, making it impossible to carry out a pregnancy test to prove whether or not she was carrying Dodi’s child.
Whilst the British establishment tried to downplay the assertion by Mohamed Al Fayed that the couple were engaged in order to undermine his conspiracy theory allegations, there is CCTV footage of a Ritz Hotel staff member collecting an item from a jewellers and taking it to the couple’s suite in the hotel.  A ring with the inscription “Dis-moi Oui” (Tell me Yes) was discovered after the couple’s death.  A receipt dated the day before the crash was also recovered, listing a “bague de fiancaille” (engagement ring).
The paparazzi photographers had crowded at the Ritz Hotel having heard rumors that there was to be an announcement of the princess’s engagement or pregnancy.
Henri Paul, who was Deputy Head of Security at the hotel wasn’t due to be on duty that night but returned just to drive the couple. There have been claims that the blood used to test his alcohol level at the time of the crash (thereby concluding that his drunkeness contributed to the accident) was actually not his, but that of a suicide victim.  This is further evidenced by the fact that there were high levels of carbon monoxide in his blood, consistent with that of exhaust fumes (as would be evident in a suicide by hose to tailpipe).  It is widely accepted that Paul didn’t draw a breath after the crash, and the level of carbon monoxide found would have rendered him unable to drive so it wasn’t there before the crash.
The Deputy Head of Security and stand in driver, Henri Paul
There is CCTV footage of Paul hovering outside the rear entrance of the hotel on the night of the crash, waving to a photographer.  You can then see one of the paps raise his camera in response, which if you take into account the evidence of Richard Tomlinson that Paul was being paid by MI6 and that there was an MI6 plant in the pap pack, is incredibly suspicious. Perhaps Paul was involved in the plan up to a certain point—not knowing that he was actually driving to his death?
Lord Stevens, who conducted the official inquiry into the accident in the UK met with Paul’s parents in 2006 and assured them that their son had not been drunk—that he’d only had two drinks that night.  Yet just over a month later, the official report was published saying that Paul was three times over the drink-drive limit and that his ‘drunkeness’ had caused the crash.  Why the sudden change of heart?
You know there’s an old saying: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not following you…”
Diana’s death was such a shock to the world, and such a tragedy.  Just because the thought that she was killed deliberately is difficult to comprehend, it doesn’t make it untrue.
 Prince Philip
Queen claimed ‘someone must have greased the brakes’ on hearing of Princess Diana’s car crash
The Queen exclaimed ‘Someone must have greased the brakes’ in reaction to hearing about Princess Diana's car crash, according to Ingrid Seward’s new book, ‘An Intimate Portrait of the Queen in Her Own Words’
By Sian Harrison
15 Aug 2015
Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana are said to have had an ‘extraordinary and complex’ relationship Photo: Getty Images
The Queen’s initial reaction to news of Princess Diana’s car crash was that ‘someone must have greased the brakes’, it has been claimed.
Diana was killed in August 1997, along with her boyfriend Dodi Fayed, when the car they were travelling in crashed in Paris.
As news of the accident reached the Royal Family, before it was realised Diana had died, Her Majesty reportedly issued the remark.
The claims were made in Ingrid Seward’s new book, ‘An Intimate Portrait of the Queen in Her Own Words’.
The Royal biographer said the comment hinted at the ‘extraordinary and complex’ relationship between the two women.
Writing in the Daily Mail, she said: “At first it was thought that, though the car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel was serious, Diana had not been killed.'
CCTV footage of Princess Diana leaving the Ritz hotel in Paris on the night of the accident  Photo: PA
“According to one witness present when the Queen heard the initial news, she mused out loud: ‘Someone must have greased the brakes'.”
Diana’s untimely death triggered national mourning, and the Queen faced some initial criticism from the public for not leaving her holiday retreat at Balmoral and returning to London immediately.
There was also consternation over the refusal to fly a flag at half mast from Buckingham Palace.
Ms Seward wrote that the Queen was ‘bewildered’ by these criticisms, as the flag not being flown while she was not in residence was ‘mere protocol’.
Prince of Wales wrote of fear of divorce in private letter
William and Kate issue furious warning over paparazzi pictures of their children
She claimed the decision to stay in Scotland was made so the young princes William and Harry were given the chance to ‘absorb the shock of their mother’s death’ in private.
The Royal expert added: “Her first priority was to protect them.”
The Queen making a televised address following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales  Photo: Rex Features
Her book also claims the Queen was initially very fond of the young Diana Spencer, writing to a friend that: “She is one of us.”
But Ms Seward said that, as the princess became nervous and the Queen’s concerns about the increased press attention grew, their relationship turned cold.
Diana and the Queen initially had a warm relationship  Photo: Getty
He said the relationship was ‘brought into sharp relief’ by the publication earlier this week of new behind-the-scenes photographs of Diana’s wedding to Charles in 1981.
She added: “Despite the joyous occasion, there is little evident warmth between the two women or even a flicker of happiness on either face — a glimpse, perhaps, of their underlying anxieties and the great emotional gulf between two such differing personalities.
Ms Seward previously disclosed the Queen’s reaction to the crash in an earlier book, ‘The Queen and Di’, published in 2000.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Who is This Guy in the Oval Office? (Part 25)


Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS
Published on Oct 1, 2015
Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.
Say what you want about Putin... when he's right, he's right.

Obama finally tells the truth!
Published on Aug 17, 2015
Texas to blackmailing Obama: Maybe you can just keep your federal funds
Gauntlet thrown
By  Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives 
May 16, 2016
Surely you heard this past weekend about the Obama threat to withhold federal education funds from states who don’t immediately embrace Obama’s transgender bathroom policies. The current shell game of collecting money through the IRS and then sending it back to the states in the form of federal aid is merely a way for the federal government to dictate to the state how they must operate. It’s certainly not a new phenomenon, either. Remember the nationwide 55-mile-per-hour speed limit? That was never a law passed by Congress. It was a gambit of Jimmy Carter to deny federal highway funds to any state that didn’t play ball.
Typically, states meekly capitulate to these threats because they don’t want to lose the funds. Obama knows that perfectly well, and figured he could use the threat of withholding federal funds to force his transgender bathroom agenda on the entire nation.
But what will happen if the day finally comes when the federal government has pushed too far, and some state tells Washington it can take its federal aid and shove it? And if some state were to do that, which one do you supposed it might be?
You guessed right:
Texas’ lieutenant governor says the state is prepared to forfeit billions of dollars in federal funding for public schools following an Obama administration directive over bathroom access for transgender students.
Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Friday (May 13) that Texas “will not yield to blackmail” and urged superintendents to defy the new federal guidance. The directive says public schools are obligated to treat transgender students in a way matching their gender identity.
The guidance doesn’t impose new legal requirements, but rather clarifies expectations for districts receiving federal funds.
Patrick says Texas receives roughly $10 billion in federal education dollars. He didn’t say how that money might be replaced. Patrick’s remarks came only moments after more than half the state’s 1,200 school districts lost a major lawsuit claiming that Texas unconstitutionally underfunds public schools.
Consider what Obama is actually threatening to do here
Consider what Obama is actually threatening to do here. Most federal education funds go to assist poor children. If Republicans were threatening to withhold funds to poor children to force some sort of agenda . . . well, I’ll leave it to your imagination how the media, and indeed Obama himself, would play that one.
Since Obama typically has the media in his back pocket, he is probably confident they will play up the “transgender rights” angle and completely ignore the blackmail Obama is using to try to get his way.
But will they? I do not think anywhere near a majority of Americans support this agenda, regardless of all the noise from the media, the political class and celebrities in favor of it. If Texas draws the line and Obama still withholds the funds, can his media allies really blame Texas for making poor children pay the price? They’ll try. Maybe their power to control narratives is so absolute that they can even pull this off, but I have my doubts.
Here’s bigger issue: If any state has the economic wherewithal to suck up the loss of these federal funds, it’s Texas. It has the strongest economy of any state and accounts for a wildly disproportionate share of the limited job growth that has happened during Obama’s presidency.
What if Texas no longer thinks it’s in its best interests to keep sending tax money to Washington
What if Texas turns away the federal funds and decides it’s doing just fine without them? You think other states won’t notice? More to the point, what if Texas no longer thinks it’s in its best interests to keep sending tax money to Washington, or to keep accepting its share of the federal debt? Texas was once an independent republic, you know. It’s rich with natural resources and clearly has little patience for the nonsense coming out of Washington.
You might think the left would be happy to see Texas and its 34 red-state electoral votes go, but the truth is America desperately needs Texas’s resources and its economic prowess - much more than Texas needs those federal funds.
And, if Texas finally calls Washington’s bluff, it could be a greater game-changer than anyone realizes.
‘Bathroom Barry’s’ Real Legacy

"It's a girl!" "It's a Boy!" will be replaced by "It's a transgender!"
By  Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives 
May 14, 2016
‘Bathroom Barry’ is no longer just a figment of overworked imagination. Barack-aka-Barry-Soetoro-Obama has gone into the school washroom and he’s never coming out again.
This latest invasion on the safety and privacy of innocent school children, came hurtling at their parents in the middle of the night.
“The president issued a directive requiring every public school in the nation to accommodate transgender students—under Title IX guidelines. (FoxNews, May 13, 2016)
“Boys who identify as girls and vice versa must be allowed to use the bathrooms and locker rooms and shower stalls of their choosing. They must also be allowed to play on the sports teams of their choosing.”
“School districts that dare defy the administration’s directives could face lawsuits and lose millions of dollars in federal funding. Resistance, in other words, is futile.
“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said.
In Obama’s social tinkering world, a guy’s not a guy, a girl’s not a girl anymore.  They are interchangeable by both parents and politics in the Brave New World the far left keep advancing enabled by tax dollars.
Make that a brave new world that overnight has become utterly transgendered.
How else to explain that one day after Obama’s invasion into the school bathroom, it has been revealed from overseas that toddlers are among 1,500 under-16s sent to a ‘transgender identity clinic’?
“Children as young as THREE (are) convinced they are born in the wrong body”.(Daily Mail, May 14, 2016)
If three-year-old little gaffers are convincing themselves that they are born in the wrong body without activists’ and Big Government’s help, then pigs will soon fly through the air with as much ease as global warming/climate change as the government’s latest cash cow.
“The number of children referred to gender identity clinics has doubled in the last year.(Daily Mail)
“Children as young as three were among the 1,419 under-16s who received support during 2015/16.
“That’s an increase from the 697 children the previous year who believe they were born in the wrong body.
“Parents are now having to wait up to nine months to take their child to a clinic after being referred by their GP.
“Figures from the Gender Identity Development Service show they treated three children aged three last year.
“Dr Polly Carmichael, from the clinic which is part of the Tavistock Centre, told The Sun the rise was unprecedented.
‘Young people are making the full social transition—living full-time in their preferred gender inside and outside the home—at earlier ages,’ she said.
Children as young as 3 believe they were born in the wrong body?
They put their teddybears and nightly prayers to their Guardian Angels aside to come to that decision on their very own?
‘It is what it is’ has become it is what it shouldn’t be, ‘designer babies’ on steroids.
For the past seven and a half years, Obama has done everything possible to turn the Western world on its head.
You can depend on him pulling out all the stops on any kind of stability during his last months calling the shots.
Obama steadfastly works to remove all things familiar in the American lifestyle in order to make native born Americans uncomfortable in their own skins and their own country.
With ongoing policies making America a jobless state, he’s already deprived Americans of their preferred health care plans; is flooding the country with undocumented ‘refugees’; releasing from prisons felons of all types, including rapists and murderers.
School children will be taught that God didn’t create them, politics did
The Armed Forces have been whittled down to skeleton status during Obama’s watch, and America’s once mighty Air Force is now scrabbling for spare parts.
Make no mistake that all of this is intended to make folk feel that there is nothing left of the America they grew up in, in which they are now raising their children.
Having found the right route by which to cow their parents into Marxist submission by smearing them as bigots, homophobes, Islamophobes, etc., Obama’s now found a way to justify transgender facilities in every public school.
School children will be taught that God didn’t create them, politics did.
The only break worried parents get on the transgender order is that school will be let out for summer next month but must return to four months of Obama’s rule come September.
It is between now and then that voters can do everything possible to keep ‘Pant Suit President’ Hillary Clinton from following through on Obama’s transgendered world.
Meanwhile, parents’ proud announcements “It’s a girl!” “It’s a Boy!” will be replaced by “It’s a transgender!”
How Many Illegal Alien Criminals Released by Obama Were Involved in Violent Protests Against Trump?
Protest Turns Violent at Donald Trump Rally in Costa Mesa, California
By  John Lillpop -- Bio and Archives  
April 29, 2016
Perhaps it’s just coincidence or simply a matter of bad timing, rather than a vast left-wing government conspiracy against American citizens by an administration known to be openly and bitterly hostile to all things American.
Still, the confluence of events is quite remarkable.
To wit, recent reports indicate that the Obama administration released, rather than deported, thousands of criminal illegal aliens, including some guilty of murder and rape.
This is particularly ironic when considering the fact that violent protestors, many carrying Mexican flags, rioted against Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in Costa Mesa on Thursday.
As reported regarding the nonsensical release of murderers and other violent illegal aliens:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has revealed that 124 illegal immigrant criminals released from jail by the Obama administration since 2010 have been subsequently charged with murder.
A Center for Immigration Studies report on the data from ICE to the Senate Judiciary Committee added that the committee is not releasing the names of the murder suspects.
“The criminal aliens released by ICE in these years — who had already been convicted of thousands of crimes — are responsible for a significant crime spree in American communities, including 124 new homicides. Inexplicably, ICE is choosing to release some criminal aliens multiple times,” said the report written by respected director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan.”
With respect to the violent protests, as reported:
“A protest outside a campaign rally for Donald J. Trump in Costa Mesa, Calif., turned violent late Thursday night, as the crowd smashed a police car, the authorities closed nearby streets and officers arrested about 20 people.
The unrest erupted outside an amphitheater where Mr. Trump, the favorite in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, was addressing several thousand supporters, according to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.”
The big, urgent question: Has the Obama administration deliberately released illegal alien killers in order to populate violent anti-Trump riots?
John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal. “Clean and sober” since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are actually considered normal!.
John can be reached at:
Will Obamacare Collapse Before Obama Leaves Office?
Media should be holding Obama and the Democrats accountable for the damage this law has done to America's health care system, to the job market, to the family budget of millions of Americans
By  Roger Aronoff -- Bio and Archives 
April 29, 2016
Obamacare has turned out to be a massive boondoggle for the American people, despite the media’s consistent attempts to cover up this law’s failures. After all, to disparage Obamacare is to tarnish President Obama’s legacy. But as Marc Thiessen, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, points out in a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post, Obamacare’s, and therefore Obama’s, enduring domestic legacy will do “more to discredit big government than 1,000 Reagan speeches ever did.”
The typical mainstream media playbook stipulates that all opposition to liberal policies must be reported as originating with Republicans or conservatives. Thus, The Hill recently cast opposition to Obamacare as Republican presidential partisanship. “Health insurance companies are laying the groundwork for substantial increases in ObamaCare premiums, opening up a line of attack for Republicans in a presidential election year,” wrote Peter Sullivan for The Hill.
Majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare
However, according to a January CBS News/New York Times poll, the reality is that a majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare. That was reconfirmed in a Pew Research Center survey released this month, showing that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, while only 44 percent approve. Those angry about this law are not just a fringe group incited by Republican campaign rhetoric.
Many Americans were forced by the Obama administration into this unsustainable program that has high deductibles and ever-increasing premiums. “According to a 2014 McKinsey survey, about three-quarters of those in the exchanges were previously insured on commercial plans, either through their employers or the individual market,” writes Thiessen. “They were doing fine without taxpayer-subsidized insurance but were pushed into Obamacare.”
According to the Heritage Foundation in 2015, a net 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-based coverage in 2014. “Because the reduction in employer-group coverage offset almost all of the increase in individual-market coverage, the net change in private-market coverage during 2014 was an increase of just 260,000 individuals,” write Edmund F. Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski for Heritage.
While Obamacare did change the law to allow those with preexisting conditions access to care, it has also had disproportionately negative effects in exchange for that benefit. Was the rise in the number of insured really worth the cost? After all, health care access does not always translate into better health care service. In fact, the real world effect is often quite the contrary.
‘If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’
As Thiessen pointed out, “The president promised ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’ But commercial insurers who stay in Obamacare are responding to massive losses by narrowing provider networks, with fewer doctors and hospitals to choose from. And those that quit are being replaced by Medicaid HMOs with even less doctor choice.”
Heritage’s numbers showed that Obamacare has helped very little to expand health care coverage outside of the Medicaid expansion.
Also, how many Americans have lost, or cannot find, full-time jobs because of Obamacare? As we have previously cited, Mort Zuckerman, the chairman and editor of U.S. News and World Report, writing for The Wall Street Journal, argued that “Many employers cut workers’ hours to avoid the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to provide health insurance to anyone working 30 hours a week or more.”
By casting opposition to Obamacare as merely Republican partisanship, Sullivan has ignored the fact that Hillary Clinton herself has argued that she would “look at all the employment rules” to reverse Obamacare’s perverse incentives.
“You know, we’ve got to change that, because we have built in some unfortunate incentives that discourage full-time employment,” said presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton in December of last year.
If Sullivan is so interested in outlining presidential candidates’ Obamacare policies, why did he not report on Mrs. Clinton’s stated desire to reexamine the law?
Health care insurers have been bleeding red with billions of dollars of losses
Health care insurers have been bleeding red with billions of dollars of losses, despite the Obama administration’s generous re-insurance and risk-corridor subsidies. Those “subsidies are set to expire in 2017, meaning that insurers will have to make ends meet without billions in handouts,” writes Doug Badger for National Review. This may lead to even sharper increases in Obamacare premiums than have already occurred.
“Even if insurers had received all the reinsurance and risk-corridor handouts they sought—an average of $1,106 per enrollee, or nearly 25 percent of premium—they still would have lost money, our study found,” writes Badger. As it is, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) decided to defy the law and stiff the Treasury, sending billions in payments to insurers instead.
Thiessen proposes that insurance companies have three ways to respond to their current financial dilemma: “scale back coverage…raise prices or…get out of the exchanges entirely.” He believes that many insurers will choose the last option—but any of these changes can only make a bad situation worse for Obamacare’s enrollees.
Obamacare’s prohibitively high deductibles push costs back onto consumers rather than insurers, while the true costs of health care remains hidden.
“This is the adverse selection spiral—higher premiums lead to a worse risk pool, which leads to higher premiums, which leads to an even worse risk pool, and so on,” writes Brian Blase for Forbes. He and scholars at the Galen Institute and Heritage  Foundation found in a new study that without reinsurance subsidies the insurance companies would have had to charge 26 percent more for their premiums in 2014. In other words, the government is hiding the costs of Obamacare, and throwing good money after bad.
Obamacare’s subsidies cannot mitigate the effects of narrow networks, high deductibles, or insufficient care and dwindling doctor choice. Even Sullivan writes that insurers face a “smaller, sicker, and costlier” pool of enrollees than expected.
“Does this mean that Obamacare is finally entering its ‘death spiral’? Not exactly,” argues Thiessen. Instead, Obamacare consumers may face reduced quality in their health care plans.
Few mainstream media outlets report fairly about the disaster that is Obamacare, where nobody seems to have enough money to provide, or purchase, health care without big government bailing them out. Instead, Sullivan of The Hill ended with a quote from Chris Jennings, a health advisor to Hillary Clinton, who also advised Obama on health care reform, that “The ‘sky is falling’ argument is not at all compelling…It is predictable, but it is not compelling.”
The sky doesn’t need to fall on Obamacare to expose the law’s underlying flaws. We have previously documented how Obamacare was falsely sold to the American people, and how the original law was just a starting point for Obama administration bureaucrats who then added more than 20,000 pages of burdensome and confusing regulations to it.
By refusing to discuss the actual problems with Obamacare, the mainstream media are complicit in helping Obama and the Democrats scoot past the next election while claiming a great achievement for America.
Instead, the media should be holding them accountable for the damage this law has done to America’s health care system, to the job market, and to the family budget of millions of Americans.
Obama tries telling Brits wanting out of the EU what to do
But then again Marxist name-calling of their enemies is now universal
By  Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives 
April 24, 2016
The most ridiculous sound in the world has gotta’ be the one of an overbearing Barack Obama rattling his saber at Brits who want out of the EU.
It’s going to take more than insipid “back off” orders from from the likes of Obama to frighten Brits from voting the way they want on Brexit.
A feeble quack from a lame duck on his way out of public office will never dim the knowledge that it comes from a no-boots-on-the-ground in jihadist-held territory, no-skin-in-any-game-but-his-own, semi-golf pro, part-time president.
Tough talk from politicians rarely leave any traction of note.
True-grit Brits with a storied history have no fear from a man whose own history is one held under lock and key.
As a fighter, Obama’s only a fop.
It would take the imagination of a Walt Disney for anyone to ever conceive of an Obama crossing the Delaware to fight the Brits on that long ago frigid Christmas night.
Had Obama, or anyone even remotely like him, donned a red coat during America’s fight for independence, Cornwallis would have yelled, “Back of the queue for you, Buddy!”
“President Barack Obama told Britain today that it would have to ‘go to the back of the queue’ if it leaves the European Union, then tries to negotiate its own trade deal with the United States.” (Daily Mail, April 22, 2016)
One can almost hear the long gone, heroic Winston Churchill calling out Obama’s self-proclaimed ‘bro’ Prime Minister David Cameron for letting Obama get away with stating:” A US-UK trade agreement is not going to happen ‘any time soon.”
“A US-UK trade agreement is not going to happen ‘any time soon,’ Obama said during a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. (Daily Mail)
‘Not because we don’t have a special relationship but because given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements, which is hugely inefficient,’ the U.S. leader said.”
Obama fancies himself still being in charge through Hillary Clinton after the November 8 presidential election, a fantasy that depends on her making it to the Oval Office.
“Obama faced a furious backlash overseas this morning over what has been called a ‘downright hypocritical’ push for Britain to stay in the European Union. (Daily Mail)
“In a highly controversial intervention in the EU referendum campaign, Obama pleaded with British voters in a local newspaper and then the press conference not to cut ties with Brussels.
‘The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a partner, and the United Kingdom is at its best when it is helping to lead a strong Europe,’ Obama said during a news conference at Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In his op-ed Obama also invoked the spirit of the Second World War by claiming the sacrifice of GIs meant America has a stake in the EU debate and said the decision in June’s referendum ‘will echo in the prospects of today’s generation of Americans as well’.
Most Brits would know that these words are from the same Obama who has gutted the American Armed Forces; the same one who saw Marine duty as one that had two Marines hold umbrellas over his and the head of his friend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the light rain of a White House Rose Garden press conference.
“London Mayor Boris Johnson accused him of making an ‘incoherent’ and ‘inconsistent’ argument.” (Daily Mail)
Is it too late to draft Boris as a Republican presidential candidate?
“A furious Johnson said this morning: ‘The Americans would never contemplate anything like the EU for themselves or for their neighbors in their own hemisphere. Why should they think it right for us?’ (Daily Mail)
“Obama told residents of the UK today he doesn’t believe he’s overstepping.”
He doesn’t believe wiping out America in his unasked for Fundamental Transformation of America is overstepping either, Your Worship.
In any case, like most social justice engineering Marxists, Obama thinks there is no such thing as overstepping, period.
“Ultimately ‘this is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make,’ he told them.(Daily Mail)
‘I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I’m offering my opinion, and in democracies everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made.
He said, ‘That’s not a threat, that should enhance the debate.’
What a joke from a president who labels all American dissidents who happen to disagree with any of his policies as ‘racists’, ‘bigots’, ‘homophobes’ and ‘Islamophobes’.
“The U.S. president said he feels it’s his prerogative to clarify the U.S. position rather than have it defined by British politicians.
‘So they are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do,’ he said.
‘And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done.
He added, ‘The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.’
With friends like Obama who needs enemies?
“Obama brought up WWII and the international institutions the US and UK designed together including the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and NATO.
‘All of those in some degree constrained our freedom to operate and occasionally we had to deal with some bureaucracy,’ he said, ‘it meant that on occasion we had to persuade other countries and we don’t get 100 percent of what we want in each case but we knew that by doing so, everybody was going to be better off.’
President Obama claims the Republicans can't say "yes" to anything. Well, apparently he hasn't asked if he can kiss their ass. - Will Durst
Obama’s Recipe For Disaster
By Chip McLean
November 27, 2015
Growing up with an interest in government and politics as I did, I often thought about having conversations with various leaders – especially U.S. presidents. I had visions of lengthy philosophical discussions and asking questions to gain a perspective on the ideas that drove those men. I never dreamed that one day we would have a president - as we do today - that only one question comes to mind …“Mr. Obama, are you out of your damn mind?”
Barack Obama has spent the last seven years making good on his promise to “fundamentally transform” our nation. The problem is that the nation didn’t need any fundamental transformation – the system of government given to us by our founders, or as Ben Franklin said in 1787, “a republic, if you can keep it”, served us well.
The tough thing has been the “keeping it” part. Through the years, those seeking to exert more government control over our existence have been incrementally chipping away at it. Barack Obama is but the latest miscreant attempting to do so, but in his case – especially in his second term – he has dropped any pretense at “preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.”
At this point there is very little left of a republic that was based upon limited government and individual liberty. Through the gradual erosion by those who prefer to replace those ideals with a socialistic, globalist vision, the “transformation” (destruction) is all but complete.
Despite this unbridled growth of the federal behemoth, the one most imperative responsibility of the federal government – that of providing for the common defense - has been abrogated. Obama’s desire to flood our nation with 250,000 Syrian refugees isn’t just a misguided policy – it’s a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions. Obama, along with his fellow travelers on both the left and the right who support open borders/amnesty have already caused this “transformation” to change the very makeup and culture of the United States to the point that – as Breitbart news said in a recent headline, the “Majority of Americans Feel Like ‘Stranger in Own Country’”.
The Breitbart article was linked to results from an Ipsos poll where a strong majority of people agree that they do indeed feel like strangers in their own country. Who can blame them? When millions are here illegally who don’t speak English and won’t learn, who care nothing about our culture and history and prefer that which they left behind, who gobble up benefits provided by the American taxpayer, who wind up displacing American workers who need jobs, not to mention that every day the news includes more stories about illegal aliens who have murdered, raped, driven drunk and killed innocent Americans and then fill our streets demanding their “rights”- and do so without any fear of being deported by the Obama administration – is it any wonder that Americans feel like they are indeed strangers in their own land? Is it any wonder that Donald Trump is resonating with so many?
The recent attacks in France have demonstrated just how reckless unchecked immigration truly is. Europe is seeing the inevitable chickens coming home to roost. The Islamic invasion of Europe has been allowed to go unchecked for a number of years, resulting in large enclaves of Islamists that reside in what has come to be known as “no go zones”, or perhaps more accurately as Daniel Pipes said, “semi-autonomous sectors”. Regardless of what you choose to call it, granting any form of autonomy to hostile groups on your own soil is a less than safe proposition.
The groundswell of European natives had already been rising, calling on their governments to put an end to this insanity before the recent Paris attacks. Now the opposition from everyday Europeans has reached fever pitch, resulting in at least some of those nations to rethink their stances on immigration. The fact that at least one of the attackers in France arrived using a Syrian passport demonstrates just how easily Jihadists can embed themselves with the wave of “refugees”.
Implementing a temporary freeze on all immigration – legal and illegal – is a logical safeguard as we sort out what is going on. At the very least, halting any and all “refugee” resettlements into our country is the compellingly logical first step. Unfortunately this president has been incredibly devoid of logic with regard to the situation (or any other for that matter). He has doubled down on his call for more refugees to be brought into our cities and towns against our wishes – this despite the fact that in addition to a majority of Americans, a majority of states’ governors are now on record opposing the resettlement. The states have this right by virtue of the tenth amendment but Obama no doubt will show no more fealty to the constitution on this matter than he has on any other.
As this article was being written, Obama made a statement that he is “not afraid” of ISIS defeating us (or ISIL, as he for some reason prefers to call them). No, I don’t suppose Obama would be particularly afraid when the government spends millions of taxpayer dollars annually on armed secret service agents, equipment, armor-plated limousines, intel and the like for his protection. It is disturbingly ironic that while the president is afforded this much protection he remains vehemently opposed to our own second amendment rights (although that would be a subject for another column).
As far as Obama is concerned, it’s full steam ahead for Syrian (and all other Islamic) “refugee” resettlement. His recent statements that those opposed to his policy are “scared of widows and orphans” and that we who prefer Christian refugees to Muslims coming to America are “un-American” are as Pat Buchanan said in a recent column, “petulant and unpresidential.” On target as usual, Buchanan said later in his column, “Who is this man of the left to dictate to us what is ‘un-American’?” Indeed. Stopping our borders from being overrun by people who at the least do not wish to assimilate into our culture, and at the worst, pose a threat to our very existence isn’t being “xenophobic, hateful, bigoted, racist, ad nauseum” – it’s common sense – something in short supply in Washington these days.
The aforementioned Donald Trump, on a recent interview with radio host Michael Savage, basically stated that we are “19 trillion in debt and bringing in refugees” – the Middle East is letting the U.S. do it because (our leaders) “are dumb”.
“Dumb” would be an improvement. When you really boil it down, Obama’s bizarre insistence on flooding us with refugees from an area of the world that is a hotbed for jihadists – and home to a religion that is completely incompatible with western values comes down to three possibilities:
1. Obama really is “dumb”
2. Obama is insane
3. Obama is deliberately destroying our nation
I’m going with all of the above, with the added caveat that number three needs to include the question, “and at whose behest?” (still another subject for a future column).
The fact is that Obama’s stance is reckless and dangerous – so much so that there should be a serious investigation into removing him from office through impeachment or perhaps the 25th amendment.
There is an old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Sadly, Barack Obama does not even possess the acumen of a broken clock.
© 2015 Chip McLean - All Rights Reserved
Chip McLean is the founder and editor/publisher of CHO News Publishing, the umbrella for both Capitol Hill Outsider and Capitol Hill Coffee House. He is also the co-founder, along with Chris Adamo, of Rino Tracker.
Chip is a former broadcaster and long time sales professional whose interest in politics began in 1964 at the age of eight, when his parents took him to a Barry Goldwater rally during the presidential campaign. In addition to his work at Outsider News Publishing, Chip’s columns have appeared in a number of online conservative publications.
Website: CapitalHillCoffeHouse

Will Obama Suspend 2016 Election & Become 3rd Term President Under Martial Law?
Published on Jan 10, 2016
A dictator Obama seeks to suspend the 2016 election and become 3rd term President under the Martial Law.
Obama Announces Plans For A Third Term Presidential Run
by Darius Rubrics
October 2015
Washington, DC — President Barack Obama shocked the country this morning with news that he is running for a third term.
“I can’t abandon the American people now when they need me more than ever,” Obama told reporters at a press conference this morning. “We’ve come this far as a nation, now is not the time to do something different. This is the change you wanted and this is the change you’re getting.”
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told CNN he does not agree with Obama and his announcement. “This defies everything the Constitution stands for,” Paul said. “We can not let this man have a third term.”
In the history of this country only two presidents have served more than two terms, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The major problem for Obama when he runs in 2016, is the 22nd Amendment. In short, the 22nd Amendment states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…”
The U.S. Constitution does make an exception in the 22nd Amendment though: “This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.” This means Obama’s third term presidential run is only valid if he receives 75% approval from the Congress.
A bill to abolish the 22nd Amendment was recently introduced into Congress by New York Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano and is gaining popularity. This is exactly the kind of news that makes an Obama 2016 Presidential run possible.
Paul Horner who is a spokesman for the Obama Administration told reporters how amazing this news is for the country. “Obama is guaranteed to win in 2016 and then we’ll all be able to enjoy this great man for another four years. Things could not get any better for the American people. I’m so stoked!”
Also See:
Who is This Guy in the Oval Office?
 (Part 1)
16 February 2009
(Part 2)
22 April 2009
(Part 3)
16 June 2009
(Part 4)
03 August 2009
(Part 5)
03 January 2010
(Part 6)
20 May 2010
(Part 7)
21 November 2010
(Part 8)
14 February 2011
(Part 9)
03 August 2011
(Part 10)
10 October 2011
(Part 11)
11 December 2011
(Part 12)
18 April 2012
(Part 13)
01 July 2012
(Part 14)
25 October 2012
(Part 15)
14 December 2012
(Part 16)
22 May 2013
(Part 17)
27 July 2013
(Part 18)
07 October 2013
(Part 20)
10 February 2014
(Part 21)
03 June 2014
(Part 22)
22 December 2014
(Part 23)
23 October 2015
(Part 24)
01 February 2016
Who will be the Next First Lady?
01 July 2008
Is Michelle Obama a Princess?
02 October 2013