Obame Delays Obamacare Again…. To Help Democrats in Their Possible Reelection!

You remember the infamous lie:

“If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. Period”

Well that lie was repeated by Democrats across the country.  Now some of those Democrats are facing an uphill battle for reelection.  With the Democrats in danger of losing the Senate, Obame will delay the implementation of obamacare.  The first delay would have pushed cancellations to after the 2014 elections. BUT, the cancellations would have gone out 90 days before the end of the year.  That means the cancellations would go out late September, just before the elections.

The Dems want to keep the Senate and not lose anymore in the House.  So, sources say the White House is going to announce another delay to protect their reelection chances.  I guess their jobs and retention of power are more important than the health of the American citizen.  They will force people to keep substandard policies rather than give them the policies that they need.  The average American citizen can’t determine the health coverage that they need only the White House and Democrats can determine such things.

No surprise there.


Obame Gives Two Year Extension

Anything for political expediency and to preserve their power.

Didn’t he and the Democrats shut down the government because he did not want to delay obamacare?


29 thoughts on “Obame Delays Obamacare Again…. To Help Democrats in Their Possible Reelection!

  1. shawny2011 March 5, 2014 / 10:16 am

    Winning at any cost is the name of the game. But it is also abuse of power and betrayal of the oath of office “promise to faithfully execute the laws” (something Obama has yet to do unless it was a law that furthered the agenda.) The precedent is destructive and must be stopped. Unfortunately, as long as we continue in a “national emergency” status the extraordinary powers that allows the executive branch will, as several administrations have already shown, be adopted as normal business. Congress has yet to challenge it. Congress has yet to challenge anything this Emperor does or does not do and he is making Nixon look like a saint.

    • Retired Spook March 5, 2014 / 12:32 pm


      Are you familiar with the movement to have a Constitutional Convention of the States? It’s flying under most people’s radar, but there’s a very distinct possibility that it will happen. It’s the ONLY way we’re ever going to get term limits for legislators, and the ONLY way we’re ever going to get a balanced budget amendment. The problem we have now is that there is no procedure short of impeachment to hold a lawless president and attorney general accountable.

      • Amazona March 5, 2014 / 2:40 pm

        “…there is no procedure short of impeachment to hold a lawless president and attorney general accountable…”

        What about a former president and former attorney general?

        Just curious….anyone know what “Obame” is/means?

  2. Retired Spook March 5, 2014 / 3:01 pm

    Just curious….anyone know what “Obame” is/means?

    I think it’s a take-off on “Obama” and “Obey me”. Personally, I still like BHOzo.

    What about a former president and former attorney general?

    That’s a good question. I would think, in order for a new administration to prosecute a former President or AG, the election mandate would have to be pretty substantial, something along the lines of Reagan’s 49 state win in 1984. It may very well be that, by the time 2016 rolls around, Obama’s and Holder’s crimes will be so egregious and so obvious to everyone that someone could run successfully on a promise to prosecute them if elected, although I think the odds of that happening are somewhere between slim and none. And I also don’t think they would be prosecuted, even by an immensely popular new President, simply for violating their Constitutional oath. If conclusive evidence comes to light that Fast & Furious, Benghazi, or the IRS targeting went all the way to the top, either the White House or the Justice Department, that would certainly change the landscape.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 5, 2014 / 3:51 pm

      If conclusive evidence comes to light that Fast & Furious, Benghazi, or the IRS targeting went all the way to the top, either the White House or the Justice Department, that would certainly change the landscape.

      A former classmate of Obama’s concurs.

      he second of Nixon’s Articles of Impeachment was for the crime of using the IRS to punish his political opponents. The difference is that Barack Obama’s IRS scandal makes Richard Nixon look like a minor league rookie.

      Tea Parties are just one part of this widespread conspiracy. I was personally targeted along with many others including Dr. Benjamin Carson; former GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell; a stage 4 terminal cancer victim (after appearing on Fox News); conservative filmmakers like Jerry Mullen (Dinesh D’Souza’s partner) and Joel Gilbert; Christian minister Billy Graham; Catherine Engelbrecht, who was targeted over 15 times by the IRS and other government agencies after founding her Tea Party; and numerous prominent GOP donors. The list goes on and on.

      There is a clear pattern of a criminal conspiracy here – this was an organized crime conspiracy that would make Al Capone and the Gambino Crime Family proud. The only question is can Obama be connected? If he can, this becomes the biggest scandal in modern U.S. political history.

    • Amazona March 5, 2014 / 6:22 pm

      If Ken Lay was sentenced to prison for Enron, why wouldn’t Obama be responsible for his crimes plus Holder’s? Does he have to have his actual fingerprints on a document ordering people to specifically violate the Constitution to be held accountable? It’s his branch of government and his oversight responsibility, and Holder is his appointee.

      • Retired Spook March 5, 2014 / 8:19 pm

        If Ken Lay was sentenced to prison for Enron, why wouldn’t Obama be responsible for his crimes plus Holder’s?

        Works for me.

  3. Jeremiah March 5, 2014 / 10:40 pm

    One way you know someone is guilty … “I plead the fifth”. So many from whom answers are needed, no one is willing to answer.

    • M. Noonan March 6, 2014 / 1:13 am

      None of them will talk, and even if any of them did, Holder wouldn’t prosecute – our only way to fix this is to win in 2016 and get an AG who will be willing to go over the previous 8 years and prosecute everyone who broke a law in the Obama Administration…that would set the lesson: even if the current President will protect you, the next might not…so better just obey the law.

      That and revive the old, Jacksonian reform – “rotation”. No bureaucrat in the same department for more than, say, 4 years…in other words, no more career bureaucrats.

      • shawny2011 March 6, 2014 / 9:49 am

        If conservatives win the presidency in 2016, what the heck do you think we the people will win? Both left and right are running the same power grabbing agenda. Both are pardoning (for decades now) the horrendous corruption of the previous administration no matter how loudly you hear them screaming for justice when the other side is in office. Surely the left must also recognize the pattern. Obama is just the newest, nastiest face on it. But he didn’t create DHS, the Patriot Act, and both sides of the aisle voted in NDAA. Although he may have perfected corruption and abuse of power, he didn’t invent them. How many administration now have we been in a State of National Emergency status which just keeps getting extended year after year by whomever is in office? I don’t think waiting for another election is going to get it this time. I think the people and the states need to rise up and say no and start changing things themselves. Spooks Constitutional Convention is a great idea, the Tenth Amendment Center is doing great things in getting the states to pass legislation against these unconstitutional federal laws and regulations too. More and more groups from both sides are realizing it’s not about left and right, it’s about wrong and right.

      • Retired Spook March 6, 2014 / 10:45 am

        More and more groups from both sides are realizing it’s not about left and right, it’s about wrong and right.

        Shawny, for more and more Conservatives it’s about right and wrong, for Progressives — not so much. Progressives are, in general, still mostly about the ends justify the means; more about fairness than right and equality than liberty. And I don’t see that changing any time soon, although a repeat of 2010 this fall would go a long way toward marginalizing the Left.

      • Amazona March 6, 2014 / 12:21 pm

        Shawny, I see two developments in the GOP end of the races for ’14 and ’16. One is the determination of so many newcomers to challenge and reform the party, because they see the same thing you and the rest of us have been complaining about—-the only difference between Republican and Democrat these days being the letter after the name. The other is the awareness on the part of those establishment types that they can’t get away with it any more.

        We don’t have to replace all of the RINOs if we can get enough new blood in there to have a coalition that will put so much pressure on them they have to act like conservatives no matter how painful it is for them. The TEA Party scared them, but this evolution of the TEA Party into a more widespread outrage at the abandonment of Constitutional law and principles is even more terrifying.

        I’d say the same thing is true of the Dems. Look at how many are running away from Obama. Just as suddenly no one wanted to admit having voted for Nixon, Congress is now full of people who gaze off into the distance and pretend to be thinking deep thoughts when mention is made of the fact that THEY are the ones who saddled us with this mess.

        The real question to me is whether or not we can find a sheriff who will enforce a new commitment to Constitutional Conservatism. I was quite apolitical during the whole Contract With America thing, still not out of the limbo of my Unexamined Liberalism, so all I know about is what I have heard and read, all of which has passed through the filters of the sources. But I understand that after that first 100 days of pretty substantial success, the energy flagged, and after a while the DC Establishment seduced some of the former firebrands, and eventually it all sputtered out. Maybe we need a more focused, less egotistical, Gingrich, who can also remember his wedding vows, to herd GOP Congresscritters and Dems afraid of losing their jobs into some sort of coherent political force.

      • Amazona March 6, 2014 / 12:36 pm

        Spook, the biggest failure of the run-of-the-mill Progressive, who just buys into the fairy dust promises without looking behind the curtain, is the failure to realize that their goals all depend on who is defining the terms.

        They bleat about “fairness” but their concept is always slanted toward their own biases, and they never stop to think that if the other side gets into power the authority they gave to the government to accomplish what THEY decided to be “fair” is now there, established and in place, for the opposition to use.

        This is why process is so important, and I think it is the one thing we need to get across to those Progressives—that without process, the whole thing becomes a see-saw of what is essentially mob rule. They are quite giddy, watching The One We Have All Been Waiting For thumb his nose at Congress and just make his own rules, cherry-picking legislated law to determine which have his imperial approval and which should just be ignored or dismissed. They refuse to look forward to the possibility that this new power may soon be in the hands of the opposition.

        We want to elect people who will not only not use that power, but who will act to deny it to any future President-Who-Would-Be-King. But the fact is, once the precedent is set, once the nation has given its tacit approval to this kind of despotic behavior from its president, it is harder to unwind the tangle.

        I want a new President who has the gumption to stand up and declare “My duty as President is to uphold the Constitution, and one of my first acts is going to be examination of every Executive Order written in the past three or four administrations, and to repeal every one that our legal team determines was an unconstitutional expansion of the authority of the office. We will sign a bill, if passed, to repeal the ACA, on the grounds that it is an unacceptable expansion of federal power not allowed by the Constitution, but we will offer the assistance of the government to help mitigate the damage done to citizens who were harmed by this bill, while reasonable solutions to the real problems of access to health care are addressed. We broke it, and we have the obligation to fix it. We have a commitment to shifting as much power and authority to state and local governments, and to the people, as we can, because we believe this was the intent of the Founders and the purpose of our Constitution. “

  4. Retired Spook March 6, 2014 / 1:49 pm

    I’m sitting here eating lunch and listening to Rush. He just played a clip of Ted Cruz speaking at CPAC. In one line, Cruz highlighted what’s wrong with the GOP establishment. He suggested a new bumper sticker: “REPUBLICANS – WE WASTE LESS”.

    • M. Noonan March 6, 2014 / 2:31 pm


      At least Cruz sees the need for radical changes.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 6, 2014 / 2:38 pm

        Or just cover all the bases with one blanket phrase:

        Republicans — we’re not as bad as Democrats.

  5. shawny2011 March 6, 2014 / 6:05 pm

    LOL……just a matter of whether you like you’re turd to stack up or splat. No amount of mustard is covering the bad taste any more. Spook is right about the Progressives, but I know a bunch of REAL Democrats who think of the Progressives, Socialists, Marxists and Communists in their party like we do our RINOs. Even the Progressives fear the thought of anyone else in power, anyone who can’t be controlled, anyone who won’t go along with their agenda, might screw with their status quo. That’s why they’ve got candidates in both parties and hate the Tea Party. It’s also why the elections are not as important as what we the people do individually and in our states.

    • Amazona March 6, 2014 / 6:13 pm

      Shawny, those “…who think of the Progressives, Socialists, Marxists and Communists in their party like we do our RINOs..” are our target audience. These are the people we can appeal to by talking about government instead of political identity. These are the people who can and, hopefully, will vote for a coherent political philosophy in line with the Constitution instead of letting themselves be swayed by personality or scandal, or locked into political identity instead of ideology.

      • Amazona March 7, 2014 / 8:18 am

        But what IS it? I am all in favor of states stepping up to reassert their sovereignty, and moving to amend the Constitution as Mark Levin has pointed out they can do, but I am not sure what this is about: “…Convention of States application to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.”

        I mean, that sounds really good, but what does it mean? The word “application” seems to mean it needs permission, and I am not sure just what mechanism there might be to “… limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government…” other than action to reform the existing government to comply with the existing limitations. A law is just a bunch of words if it is not enforced.

      • Amazona March 7, 2014 / 8:27 am

        Maybe I just don’t understand the process. I think it was the term “application” that threw me. It seemed odd to have a situation in which a state stepped up to say “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more” and then asked permission to do so.

        Spook, what can you tell us about this movement in Indiana? It seems to be coming from your back yard, so to speak, and I know you keep in touch with your local lawmakers.

        “Last week, the President Pro Tempore of the Indiana State Senate David Long (R-Fort Wayne) joined an effort to explore convening a Constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the Constitution.

        Long joins legislators from Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Wisconsin who have all signed a letter calling for every state to send a three-person bipartisan delegation to George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Virginia on December 7th.

        The purpose of the Mount Vernon Assembly is to plan an Article V Constitutional Convention. The exact nature of proposed amendments is presently unclear.

        Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a way from state legislatures to amend the country’s most authoritative founding document. Under Article V, two-thirds of state legislatures may call on Congress to convene a convention, and three-fourths of states can vote to ratify any amendments – without or without Congress’ approval.

        There has never been an Article V convention.

        “The authors of the Constitution included a state-led amendment option as a check on a runaway federal government,” Long said, according to a story in the Northwest Indiana Times. “The dysfunction we see in Washington, D.C., provides an almost daily reminder of why this option is needed now more than ever.”

        Maine has previously joined Article V convention efforts, with 20th century proposals for the direct election of U.S. Senators, the repeal of the 16th Amendment (Income Tax), and the establishment of revenue sharing agreements between the states and federal government.”


        I noted the phrase “…The exact nature of proposed amendments is presently unclear…” I thought Mark Levin laid out some very rational arguments for specific amendments in his book.

      • Retired Spook March 7, 2014 / 9:02 am

        Excellent research, Amazona. David Long is, indeed, one of the driving forces behind a convention of the states movement. Interesting side note; his wife, Melissa, is the evening news anchor for channel 21, the ABC affiliate in Fort Wayne, and the daughter of my wife’s first boss, who was a local realtor.

        I really think a constitutional convention of the states is an idea whose time has come. The only negative comment I’ve heard or read about a convention of the states is that it would offer a chance to do a lot of negative things (like repeal the 2nd amendment). The fact is that 38 states would still have to ratify any amendments that are proposed at the convention, and I think it would be a snowy day in Hell before you would get 38 states to repeal the 2nd amendment, or to do anything, for that matter, that would have a negative impact on liberty. But Liberals would have their say at such a convention, no doubt about it. I just don’t think they represent a majority of state legislatures, which is the beauty of the way our republic is set up.

        I haven’t read Mark Levin’s book, but I did read a pretty detailed outline of it. He makes some excellent suggestions.

  6. Retired Spook March 7, 2014 / 9:44 am

    Here’s some more information originating in the Indiana State Legislature. The safeguards against a runaway convention are pretty stringent.

    Delegate Limitation: Strictly limits the authority of Indiana’s delegates to an
    Article V amendments convention. Provisions guarding against a so-called
    “runaway convention” include:

    o Requires the Indiana General Assembly to adopt a binding resolution
    governing the rules of procedure for Indiana’s delegates.

    o Provides that a vote cast by a delegate or alternate that is outside the
    instructions established by the General Assembly or exceeds the subject
    matter limits established by the General Assembly’s resolution calling
    for the Article V convention is void.

    o Provides that a delegate or alternate who votes or attempts to vote
    outside the instructions established by the General Assembly or the
    subject matter limits established by the General Assembly’s resolution
    calling for the Article V convention forfeits his/her appointment and is
    guilty of a Class D felony.

    o Makes clear that the General Assembly’s application calling for the
    Article V convention ceases to be active and is rendered ineffective if all
    of the delegates and alternates vote or attempt to vote outside of the
    instructions established by the General Assembly or the subject matter
    limits established by the General Assembly’s resolution calling for the
    Article V convention.

    o Establishes an advisory committee that a delegate can consult if he/she
    has a question about whether a vote or other action would violate the
    instructions established by the General Assembly or exceed the subject
    matter limits established by the General Assembly’s resolution calling
    for the Article V convention.

  7. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 7, 2014 / 10:14 am

    The reason the convention of the states is flying under most people’s radar is that here’s what you get when you do a search for “Constitutional convention of the states” at NBCNEWS.com (or ABC, or CBS, or CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox News)

    sorry, 0 results

  8. Amazona March 7, 2014 / 11:13 am

    From RedState:


    “Mark Levin is proposing ten amendments to the Constitution. Each one is written in thoughtful language so as to preclude any ancillary problems:

    1) Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years. Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit. But the past 100 year has proven that to be false. As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power. Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

    2) Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

    3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

    4) Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling. He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

    5) Limiting bureaucracy: He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

    6) Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

    7) Limiting Federal power to take private property

    8) Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created. However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process. If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

    9) State Authority to Override Congress: A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures. The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

    10) Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

    Taken as a whole, there is no doubt that these amendments would restore our Republican form of government. Every proposal is backed up by scholarly analysis of the Framers’ view on the proposal, an overview of what has changed since the founding, and the rationale for why the proposal is necessary. You should read the entire book. As someone who is busy reading all the current news every day, this is the only political book I made time to read all year.”

    Spook, I can see how these would, and should, prompt spirited discussion. Will you consider reposting this as a separate blog thread, if you agree?

    • Amazona March 7, 2014 / 11:49 am

      I would add, to # 10, the requirement that all ballots for federal elections be standardized among the states. We have seen the purposeful creation of chaos in Florida in the 2000 election, when the Dems created a confusing ballot with the intention of setting up a challenge should Gore lose the state, and we saw how successful that ploy was. I don’t care if you have to sit down, turn around, and pick a bale of cotton to post a vote for a state or local candidate, but I think the ballot for president and vice president has to be consistent from one state to another, clear and easy to understand.

    • Retired Spook March 7, 2014 / 12:49 pm

      Will you consider reposting this as a separate blog thread, if you agree?

      With pleasure.

  9. Jeremiah March 8, 2014 / 8:23 pm

    Shawny2011, to go along with your link, I’ve also heard that Putin is putting sanctions against the U.S. stopping all 7.62 rounds of ammo for AK-47, and many retailers are already completely wiped out. I think Obama and Putin are working together to create this crisis.

Comments are closed.