MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL U.S. TROOPS EVERYWHERE

#USMilitary

Merry Christmas To All U.S. Troops Everywhere!

I Pray GOD'S Divine Protection & Peace Over Their Lives!

GOD Bless You and Thank you for your Sacrifice.

MERRY CHRISTMAS 2014; JOY TO THE WORLD; THE LORD IS COME

#Christmas

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Joy to the world!

The Lord is come!

Have a Blessed, Highly Favored, Prosperous, Safe, Stress-Free Day

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL U.S. TROOPS EVERYWHERE (THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE)

Happy Thanksgiving To Our Troops!

May the Good LORD Bless & Protect All U.S. Troops on this Family Holiday!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE

HAPPY THANKSGIVING 2014: ENJOY A PEACEFUL, BLESSED, SAFE HOLIDAY

**ENJOY A BLESSED, PEACEFUL, SAFE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY**

PSALM 107:1

"Oh give thanks to the Lord, for He is good!
For His mercy endures forever."


~~~Note:

After the Thanksgiving holiday, I will share with you why the BLACK Churches in FERGUSON and the Community's Older BLACK Leaders are More to blame for the RACE RIOTS and OPPRESSION in that region than DARREN WILSON & BOB MCCULLOCH.~


Article Source: Statesman Journal

OBAMA LEAST INFLUENTIAL PERSON IN 2014: GQ MAGAZINE SAYS SO

Pres BARACK OBAMA JR is the LEAST Influential Person in the World!

According to GQ Magazine.

President Obama and two additional Democrats were listed alongside five Republicans as the least influential people of 2014.

Article Sources: GQ Mag; NY Daily News

ARTICLE: "Are You Even President Anymore?? Obama Listed Among Least Influential People Of 2014"

The men’s magazine ranked the President second on its 2014 list of most overrated people, with several politicos also receiving a mention.

Of the eight politically related officials listed, five were Republicans and three were Democrats. The Secret Service was also included on the list of 30.

Obama was listed on the magazine's least influential ranking in 2013. His wife, Michelle, was listed on the 2012 ranking.

"Are you even president anymore?" GQ Magazine asks President Obama.

GQ Magazine: The Least Influential People of 2014

Bono and US
President Barack Obama (D)
Donald Sterling, Former NBA Owner
Carter Bays and Craig Thomas, 'How I Met Your Mother' producers
Zach Braff, actor
Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner
Stephen A. Smith, ESPN commentator
Dwyane Wade, Miami Heat player
CNN
Former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Derek Jeter, retired Yankees player
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D)
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R)
Benny Johnson, former BuzzFeed reporter
The Brazilian soccer team
Johnny Depp, actor
Cliven Bundy, Nevada rancher
Suey Park, activist
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler (D)
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R)
Shia LaBeouf, actor
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Woody Allen, director
The Secret Service
Robin Thicke, singer
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R)
Conservative political pundit Dinesh D’Souza
Desmond Hague, ex-CEO, Centerplate food services
Mary Barra, GM CEO
Cops

CHUCK HAGEL RESIGNS: DEAR GOD WHAT ABOUT THE U.S. TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN?? (FERGUSON VERDICT)

CHUCK HAGEL RESIGNS: DEAR GOD WHAT ABOUT THE U.S. TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN??

IS HAGEL'S RESIGNATION BEING USED TO DEFLECT FROM FERGUSON VERDICT??

#justiceforMikeBrown


Effective today the U.S. Secretary of Defense CHUCK HAGEL has Resigned.

This news comes immediately after Pres OBAMA signed a New Agreement with AFGHANISTAN to keep U.S. Troops in that region longer than expected.

This news also comes on the heels of a very Shaky Nuclear Bomb Deal with IRAN.

And last but certainly not least, this news comes as ISIS continues to wreak Havoc in IRAQ, while Beheading U.S. Citizens and CHRISTIANS.

According to earlier LEAKS from the WASHINGTON POST, reports of HAGEL submitting his Official Resignation actually occurred back in September 2014.

Has anyone other than myself notice how Pres OBAMA stands in very close proximity of each member of his Administration and GLARES at them as they deliver their Public Resignations??

This includes JAY CARNEY, KATHLEEN SEBELLIUS AND ERIC HOLDER.

Has anyone other than myself also noticed how Media reports of HAGEL'S Resignation is now drowning out what's going on in FERGUSON, Missouri as it relates to the Murder of MICHAEL BROWN and Officer DARREN WILSON'S Indictment or Dismissal of Charges?

HAGEL'S Resignation could be a Media and Federal Gov't Ploy used to Deflect a Grand Jury Verdict of Dismissing all Charges against DARREN WILSON, and using U.S. Military Troops to Murder more Hurting, Oppressive BLACK People in FERGUSON.

Is this a Coincidence??

I think NOT!

Considering what happened to Ambassador CHRISTOPHER STEVENS at BENGHAZI in 2012, news of HAGEL'S Resignation is Bad News!

Is it possible CHRISTOPHER STEVENS was preparing to Resign too when he was MURDERED by AL QAEDA on September 11, 2012??

Will HAGEL be replaced by another U.S. Military Veteran who understands what it means to Serve their country as a Member of the U.S.Armed Forces, or by a Civilian who has NO Knowledge of what it really means to ever Serve in COMBAT while protecting the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA??

I don't know but GOD knows.

In fact GOD knows the Whole TRUTH about EVERYTHING and Nothing but the TRUTH!

I will continue to Trust in GOD and PRAY Psalms 91 & Isaiah 54:17 constantly over U.S. Troops currently serving all over the Globe.

I will continue to PRAY for the people of FERGUSON and for MICHAEL BROWN'S grieving Family.

"For He shall give His Angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways."

"No weapon formed against you shall prosper,
And every tongue which rises against you in judgment
You shall condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
And their righteousness is from Me,
Says the Lord."


Article Sources: ABC News; Bloomberg News; CNN; NY Times; Washington Post; Youtube

ARTICLE: "Hagel Submits Resignation as Defense Chief Under Pressure"

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel handed in his resignation on Monday, the first cabinet-level casualty of the collapse of President Obama’s Democratic majority in the Senate and the struggles of his national security team to respond to an onslaught of global crises.

In announcing Mr. Hagel’s resignation from the State Dining Room on Monday, the president, flanked by Mr. Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., called Mr. Hagel critical to ushering the military “through a significant period of transition” and lauded “a young Army sergeant from Vietnam who rose to serve as America’s 24th secretary of defense.”

Mr. Obama called Mr. Hagel “no ordinary secretary of defense,” adding that he had “been in the dirt” of combat like no other defense chief. He said that Mr. Hagel would remain in the job until his successor is confirmed by the Senate.

Administration officials said that Mr. Obama made the decision to remove Mr. Hagel, the sole Republican on his national security team, last Friday after a series of meetings between the two men over the past two weeks.

The officials characterized the decision as a recognition that the threat from the militant group Islamic State will require different skills from those that Mr. Hagel, who often struggled to articulate a clear viewpoint and was widely viewed as a passive defense secretary, was brought in to employ.

Mr. Hagel, a combat veteran who was skeptical about the Iraq war, came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestrations.

Now, however, the American military is back on a war footing, although it is a modified one. Some 3,000 American troops are being deployed in Iraq to help the Iraqi military fight the Sunni militants of the Islamic State, even as the administration struggles to come up with, and articulate, a coherent strategy to defeat the group in both Iraq and Syria.

“The next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that the defense secretary initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Even before the announcement of Mr. Hagel’s removal, Obama officials were speculating on his possible replacement. At the top of the list were Michèle A. Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense, and Ashton B. Carter, a former deputy secretary of defense.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a former officer with the Army’s 82nd Airborne, was also considered to be a contender, but a spokesman said that the senator was not in the running. “Senator Reed loves his job and does not wish to be considered for secretary of defense or any other cabinet post,” the spokesman said.

Mr. Hagel, a respected former senator who struck a friendship with Mr. Obama when they were both critics of the Iraq war from positions on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has nonetheless had trouble penetrating the tight team of former campaign aides and advisers who form Mr. Obama’s closely knit set of loyalists. Senior administration officials have characterized him as quiet during cabinet meetings; Mr. Hagel’s defenders said that he waited until he was alone with the president before sharing his views, the better to avoid leaks.

Whatever the case, Mr. Hagel struggled to fit in with Mr. Obama’s close circle and was viewed as never gaining traction in the administration after a bruising confirmation fight among his old Senate colleagues, during which he was criticized for seeming tentative in his responses to sharp questions.

He never really shed that pall after arriving at the Pentagon, and in the past few months he has largely ceded the stage to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, who officials said initially won the confidence of Mr. Obama with his recommendation of military action against the Islamic State.

In Mr. Hagel’s less than two years on the job, his detractors said he struggled to inspire confidence at the Pentagon in the manner of his predecessors, especially Robert M. Gates. But several of Mr. Obama’s top advisers over the past few months have also acknowledged privately that the president did not want another high-profile defense secretary in the mold of Mr. Gates, who went on to write a memoir of his years with Mr. Obama in which he sharply criticized the president. Mr. Hagel, they said, in many ways was exactly the kind of defense secretary whom the president, after battling the military during his first term, wanted.

Mr. Hagel, for his part, spent his time on the job largely carrying out Mr. Obama’s stated wishes on matters like bringing back American troops from Afghanistan and trimming the Pentagon budget, with little pushback. He did manage to inspire loyalty among enlisted soldiers and often seemed at his most confident when talking to troops or sharing wartime experiences as a Vietnam veteran.

But Mr. Hagel has often had problems articulating his thoughts — or administration policy — in an effective manner, and has sometimes left reporters struggling to describe what he has said in news conferences. In his side-by-side appearances with both General Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry, Mr. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and the first former enlisted combat soldier to be defense secretary, has often been upstaged.

He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad. Mr. Hagel, facing reporters in his now-familiar role next to General Dempsey, called the Islamic State an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding, “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.”

White House officials later said they viewed those comments as unhelpful, although the administration still appears to be struggling to define just how large is the threat posed by the Islamic State.



ARTICLE: "Defense Secretary Hagel, Under Pressure, Submits Resignation"

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel submitted his resignation Monday, bowing to pressure from the White House to step down after less than two years in the job in what could portend a broader shake-up among President Obama’s national security team.

Hagel resigned after holding a series of discussions with Obama and other White House officials in recent weeks. A senior defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama and Hagel “both determined that it was time for new leadership at the Pentagon.”

Hagel will remain as defense secretary until Obama can pick a replacement, who must also be confirmed by the Senate. Possible contenders include Michele Flournoy and Ashton Carter, former high-ranking defense officials during Obama’s first term who were passed over for the top job in favor of Hagel two years ago.

Obama formally announced the resignation in a late-morning appearance at the White House. Flanked by Vice President Biden, he praised Hagel’s service, listed a series of accomplishments and said he appreciated Hagel’s role as an adviser who has “always given it to me straight.”

Hagel, in brief remarks, said that serving as defense secretary “has been the greatest privilege of my life.” But neither he nor Obama gave a reason for the resignation.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is slated to take over as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, said that Hagel “was frustrated with aspects of the administration’s national security policy and decision-making process,” citing “excessive micro-management” on the part of the White House.

McCain noted that Hagel’s predecessors as defense secretary — Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta — had both likewise complained in their memoirs about excessive political interference from White House aides. “Ultimately, the President needs to realize that the real source of his current failures on national security more often lie with his Administration’s misguided policies and the role played by his White House in devising and implementing them,” he said.

When Obama nominated Hagel in January 2013, the president was intent on limiting defense spending, winding down the war in Afghanistan and keeping the military out of conflicts in the Middle East. He made clear that he was picking the decorated Vietnam War combat veteran in large part because Hagel understood “that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that’s something we only do when it’s absolutely necessary.”

Since then, however, Obama has reluctantly been dragged back into the Middle East, signing deployment orders to send as many as 2,900 troops to Iraq to serve as advisers in the fight against the Islamic State.

Hagel has been a quiet figure in that debate as the administration has struggled to articulate a strategy for defeating Islamic State and stabilizing Iraq and Syria, largely ceding the stage to other figures such as Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Rumors had intensified this month that Hagel’s time was short, though the former Republican senator from Nebraska has insisted in recent interviews that he was planning to stay at the Pentagon. The resignation was first reported by The New York Times.

A senior administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama initiated discussions with Hagel about leaving in October — shortly before the mid-term congressional elections that saw the president’s party take a beating.

Hagel never quite recovered from a stumbling performance during his confirmation process that led the Senate to approve his nomination by a narrow 58-41 vote in February 2013. The margin was exceptionally narrow, especially given the fact that he had served two terms in the Senate. Only four GOP senators voted for their fellow Republican.

Hagel served in the Senate with Obama and the two bonded during overseas trips, where both were leading critics of the Iraq war during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Unlike Panetta and Gates, Hagel in public was generally accepting of the White House’s push to keep a lid on defense spending, which had soared after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

He was most visible in supporting Obama’s strategic “pivot” to Asia, taking numerous trips to visit allies in that part of the world. But his time spent in Asia came at the expense of making his presence felt in the Middle East and Afghanistan, which continued to dominate the national security agenda despite the White House’s desire to wind down U.S. military involvement in the region.

This month, for instance, Hagel was scheduled to travel to Burma and Vietnam, where Pentagon officials were eager to make a show of his return to the country where he fought the Viet Cong as a young infantryman and was badly wounded in battle, twice.

He was forced to postpone the visit three weeks ago, a decision that the Pentagon attributed to “new and significant demands being placed” on his schedule, including a congressional hearing on the war against the Islamic State. At the time, Hagel’s aides denied the decision was a sign that he had fallen out of favor with the White House, insisting that he looked forward to rescheduling the visit.

Hagel was known to have had a tense relationship with Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, but defense officials said he tried to develop close ties with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. Hagel and McDonough met once a week, in addition to Hagel’s weekly one-on-one meetings with Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

Defense officials described Hagel as much more focused more on policy - his reform initiatives and the Pentagon budget - than on military operations in places like Iraq and Syria. His hands-off approach to battlefield operations is a sharp contrast to some earlier secretaries, such as Donald Rumsfeld.

That may have contributed to a view among some senior uniformed leaders of Hagel as a lackluster leader. One defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said many in the military saw the Nebraskan as “a perfectly acceptable but certainly not exciting” manager.

THANKSGIVING CHALLENGE 2014: GIVING THANKS BY GIVING BACK

THANKSGIVING CHALLENGE 2014:

This year I Challenge All of my Facebook Family, Fellow Bloggers and Target Audience, to either Volunteer for 2 to 4 Hours in a Homeless Shelter or Children’s Group Home on Thanksgiving Eve or Thanksgiving Day.

Or……………

Deliver a Decorated a Thanksgiving Dinner Basket/ Box with all of the Fixings for a full Thanksgiving Dinner to a local Homeless Shelter or Children’s Group Home.

GIVING BACK to others is always the best way to GIVE THANKS for our own individual Blessings!

OBAMA Faces IMPEACHMENT If He Grants AMNESTY To Millions Of Illegal Imigrants

OBAMA COULD BE IMPEACHED IF HE GRANTS INSTANT AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS:



So is it possible that Pres BARACK OBAMA will face IMPEACHMENT and TREASON Charges by a GOP Congress,
if he dares to grant Instant AMNESTY to Millions of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS??

Some members of Congress and Dr CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER says Yes!

Stay tuned because this Political Battle could get very Messy.

I suggest we PRAY fiercely for this Nation.

I predict more Fireworks are on the way.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL U.S. TROOPS

AMNESTY Can Not Be Compared To The Emancipation Proclamation!

OBAMA'S AMNESTY PLAN IS NOT THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION:

IT'S MILLIONS OF NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS IN 2016

How dare anyone compare Pres OBAMA'S 21st Century Amnesty Plan to the EMANCIPATION of helpless BLACK Slaves in 1848!

BLACK Slaves were Stolen and Bought to AMERICA against their Will.

With the exception of Innocent CHILDREN, 21st IMMIGRANTS are coming to AMERICA of their own FREE Will.

In addition SLAVES were Not allowed to VOTE.

However once the U.S. Gov't grants them Legal Citizenship, most IMMIGRANTS can VOTE.

And they will most likely VOTE for DEMOCRATS in 2016!

Thus I repeat.

How dare anyone compare Pres OBAMA'S 21st Century Amnesty Plan to the EMANCIPATION of helpless BLACK Slaves in 1848!

There is No Comparison!

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: Health Care Insurance Open Enrollment Period Begins Nov 15th

OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD: Nov 15, 2014 - Feb 15, 2015

It's time for Open Enrollment again.

It doesn't matter if you hate or love "OBAMACARE", everyone still needs Health Care Insurance!

Pres OBAMA Urges Congress To Extend UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS After Signing 2014 Federal Budget Bill (Where Are The JOBS??)

#UnemploymentBenefits

Pres OBAMA is now pushing CONGRESS to Extend UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS after he already signed the Federal Budget Bill.

Why didn't his Administration push for Congress to Extend UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS before he signed the 2014 Budget legislation??

And where are the JOBS??

Answer:

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PEOPLE, IT'S JUST MORE PARTISAN POLITICS.

ARTICLE: "White House Unemployment Benefits Push Kicks Into High Gear"


President Barack Obama returns from his Hawaii holiday toting a familiar message — blame the Republicans — as the White House and its allies launch a fresh weeklong effort to spotlight Congress’s failure to renew long-term unemployment benefits.

The push kicks into high gear Tuesday, as the president hosts a group of unemployed Americans at the White House.

That event — which comes as Democrats ramp up what they hope is a midterm-friendly focus on income inequality — will be followed by daily White House efforts to keep the story in the news, a White House official said. Obama’s political arm, Organizing for Action, has also planned events in 30 cities Tuesday to pressure Republicans, according to people familiar with the plans.

Labor and progressive groups are organizing phone calls to the Capitol and holding a Wednesday rally there featuring unemployed workers and supportive Democratic members of Congress. And on Thursday, Americans United for Change will begin airing TV ads to make the case that the GOP alone is responsible for the cancelled unemployment benefits.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he would consider any unemployment benefit extension only if it is paid for, a position Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck reiterated Sunday.

But National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said in an interview airing Sunday on “Meet the Press” that precedent from the George W. Bush years dictates unemployment benefits be extended without being paid for.

“Fourteen of the last 17 times that emergency unemployment’s been extended there have been no strings attached,” Sperling said. “All five times that President Bush extended unemployment benefits there were no pay-fors.”

And a White House official said there’s no need to offset spending in the three-month extension Senate Democrats and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) have proposed.

“There is no reason why we should have to offset emergency UI because it brings back more money into the economy than it spends, and Congress has passed bipartisan emergency extensions in the past without strings attached,” the White House official said.

Democrats think the issue is high political ground for them — an area far more advantageous than Obamacare and its tortured roll-out.

It comes as the White House is preparing a season of events focusing on income inequality and a minimum wage hike that has no hope of passing the House.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was characteristically blunt in a call with reporters Sunday: He’s looking to close the book on health care as a political albatross for Democrats and, with the midterm elections looming, move the discussion to friendlier issues like the unemployment benefits extension and increasing the minimum wage.

“If Republicans block this renewal, I think that it will have an effect and hurt their chances in the 2014 elections,” Schumer said. “For the first five years of President Obama’s term, the two biggest issues were the deficit and Obamacare, but not anymore.”

Schumer added: “Our politics are changing and the issues which have dominated our politics in the past, they’re not unimportant, but these types of issues will supersede them.”

And Sperling, during his “Meet the Press” appearance, echoed Obama’s open invitation to Republicans to join his efforts to push his broader agenda.

“It’s time for Republicans to work with the president on the bipartisan opportunities we have for job creation in housing finance reform, in immigration, on manufacturing,” he said.

Though Obama returned Sunday from two quiet weeks in Hawaii, the White House has done what it can to keep unemployment insurance in the news ahead of his arrival. Sperling issued a New Year’s Day statement saying extending unemployment benefits through the end of 2014 would “lead to 200,000 jobs.” Labor Secretary Tom Perez held a conference call with reporters Friday and will take a public role in pushing for the extension this week.

Obama’s event Tuesday was planned before Christmas, a White House official said, and another is in the works a few weeks from now to spotlight the economic impact of the long-term unemployed.

The official maintained that the White House does not view the unemployment benefit extension as a political issue, but rather is worried about a negative economic impact.

Obama, in his weekly radio address, put the onus on the GOP to back the three-month extension the Senate will vote on Monday.

“Instead of punishing families who can least afford it, Republicans should make it their New Year’s resolution to do the right thing, and restore this vital economic security for their constituents right now,” Obama said.

The Saturday radio address marked the second time Obama in a month used the venue to blast Republicans for resisting the unemployment benefits extension.

“That economic lifeline is in jeopardy,” he said in his Dec. 7 address. “All because Republicans in this Congress — which is on track to be the most unproductive in history — have so far refused to extend it.”

Yet there is a question among some progressive groups of how long the White House will push for unemployment insurance if no deal with Republicans is reached soon.

Progressive groups say that while they will be pressuring Republicans to pass the unemployment insurance extension, they will also be applying more subtle pressure on the White House and leading Democrats to stay focused on unemployment until legislation passes.

“What we fear is people are getting used to the idea that unemployment is running out and people will move onto other issues,” said the AFL-CIO’s Bill Samuel. “Unless certain elected officials continue to talk about it, it will be hard to keep it in the news.

Individual unemployed workers try, but they can’t do it themselves.”


Source: Politico

LIZ CHENEY Drops Out Of WYOMING U.S. Senate Race (Political Backlash From GLAAD??)

#LIZCHENEY

LIZ CHENEY is dropping out of the WYOMING U.S. Senate Race.

Was she run off the campaign trail by GLAAD & other GAY Activist Organizations??

I can imagine Senator ENZI is somewhere laughing right about now.

But I personally believe LIZ CHENEY would have been an Asset to the U.S. Senate.


ARTICLE: "Liz Cheney To Abandon Senate Bid"


Liz Cheney, whose upstart bid to unseat Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi sparked a round of warfare in the Republican Party and even within her own family, is dropping out of the Senate primary, she said in a prepared statement Monday morning.

"Serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign," she said.

Cheney, the eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, began telling associates of her decision over the weekend, CNN reported late Sunday night.

"Though this campaign stops today, my commitment to keep fighting with you and your families for the fundamental values that have made this nation and Wyoming great will never stop," she added.

Cheney's surprising decision to jump into the race, an announcement made in a YouTube video last summer, roiled Republican politics in the Wyoming, a state that Dick Cheney represented in Congress for five terms before moving up the Republican food chain in Washington.

Enzi was a low-key presence in Washington who was elected in 1996 and, with few blemishes, amassed a conservative voting record in the Senate. He expressed public annoyance at Cheney's decision to mount a primary challenge. A number of his Senate colleagues quickly rallied to his side and pledged support for his re-election bid.

There was little public polling of the race, but two partisan polls released last year showed Enzi with a wide lead, an assessment mostly shared by GOP insiders watching the race.

Cheney's campaign got off to a rocky start.

Her critics labeled her a carpetbagger, noting that she moved to Wyoming only in 2012 after relocating from Virginia. The issue flared in August after the Wyoming media reported that Cheney improperly received a fishing license despite not living in the state for at least a year, as the law requires.

Grabbing even more attention was her very public dispute with her sister, Mary, over the issue of same-sex marriage. Mary Cheney, who is a lesbian, took to Facebook in November to object to Liz Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriage, claiming that her sister has previously supported her relationship while saying something very different on the campaign trail.

The dispute prompted their parents to weigh in, saying they were "pained" to see the sisters battle over a private matter in full view of the news media.

Beyond the campaign missteps, Cheney's election effort, vigorously supported by her father and his allies, often felt out of tune with the small-government conservative sentiment that has fueled other Republican primary challengers.

Cheney, like her father, is an unapologetic neoconservative who favors muscular use of American military power overseas, a policy that does not sit well with many grassroots conservatives, particularly in the libertarian-leaning West.


Sources: AP, CheneyforWyoming, CNN,

JUANITA MOORE, Star Of Classic Film "Imitation Of Life" Is Dead At 99.....R.I.P.

#JuanitaMoore

BLACK Actress JUANITA MOORE, Star of the classic film "Imitation of Life" died January 1, 2014 at the age of 99.

October 19, 1922 - January 1, 2014

R.I.P.

"JUANITA MOORE'S MINI-BIO"

African American actress Juanita Moore entered films in the early 1950s, a time in which few black people were given an opportunity to act in major studio films.

Fortunately Moore's roles began improving as Hollywood developed a social consciousness toward the end of the decade.

In 1959 she received an Academy Award nomination for her performance in Imitation of Life (1959), a glossy updating of a once controversial Fannie Hurst novel about racism. Within the next decade Hollywood underwent several sociological upheavals, and Juanita was one of the beneficiaries.

She became a fixture in black-oriented films of the 1960s and 1970s, appearing in such films as Uptight (1968), Thomasine & Bushrod (1974) and Abby (1974).

She also appeared in Walt Disney Pictures' The Kid (2000), and has been in a total of more than 30 films.

Sources: imdb, Youtube

OBAMACARE Health Care Insurance Plans Go Into Effect Today (How Will OBAMACARE Fare In 2014?)

"Eight Wonks Share Their 2014 Obamacare Predictions"


Everybody is talking about how Obamacare will look on January 1, 2014.

But how will things look on January 1, 2015?

We put that question to eight smart people who follow health policy.

They represent different political perspectives and come by their expertise in different ways.

There's an economist, three trained physicians, plus a longtime consumer advocate and organizer. Two of them worked for Republican presidents, one served a Democrat.

One frequently criticizes Obamacare from the right, another from the left.

But their predictions have more in common than you might suspect:

1) ****HAROLD POLLACK:

In 2014, the most interesting political and policy stories will shift from Washington to the fifty states. States face a mammoth implementation challenge. They also provide the terrain in which we will see whether bipartisan health policy is actually possible. In some parts of the country, we’ll see some fascinating negotiations as Republican governors and the Obama administration each seek a dignified path to make this thing work.

I hope that we see something else, too: An end to the politics of impunity toward the poor and the uninsured.

It’s sobering to think that the same inequalities that make universal coverage a moral imperative pose the chief political obstacles to universal coverage itself. Those with the most to gain from the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion are economically marginal, disorganized, alienated from the levers of politics, distrusted or disliked by many other Americans. This reality produces a striking sense of impunity among governors and legislators who deny Medicaid coverage to five million people, even as the federal government stands ready to foot virtually the entire bill.

As Medicaid expansion becomes real, Republican politicians who embrace it will begin to profit. Hospitals, cities and counties, and other interest groups in non-expansion states will ask hard questions about why their states chose a different path. Poor people themselves, in campaigns such as texasleftmeout.org, will increase the pressure, too.

It’s important that these recalcitrant officials pay some price—not just to smooth the way for expanded coverage, but to debunk a particularly toxic assumption in American life. Too many politicians assume that poor people just don’t matter, politically. On many issues from the sequester to unemployment insurance, the practical consequences of this assumption are only too obvious.

This assumption is being put to the test. In 2014, I’m betting that some governors will be surprised.


2) ***GAIL WILENSKY:

As expected, 2014 was a tumultuous year for the Affordable Care Act. It started in January with many people who thought they had enrolled not actually being insured--either because the information hadn't been accurately transmitted back to their insurance companies or because they hadn't paid their premiums by January 10. After a lot of pressure from the Administration to cover people retroactively if necessary, people newly insured began receiving services.

Access to health services was less problematic than many had feared because of the smaller-than-predicted numbers enrolling in private insurance. Only 4.5 million got coverage, even after the March surge in sign-ups. And there were the many "red" states that hadn't expanded their Medicaid coverage. Some states reported challenges getting primary care services provided to the newly insured--California having the most significant problems.

Some of the smaller regional insurance companies participating in 2014 decided not to participate again in 2015. Some larger companies that had only selectively participated in 2014 increased their participation only modestly for 2015, still concerned about the significant adverse selection that had occurred in 2014 and their difficulty to price properly.

The biggest uproar occurred when many smaller/mid-sized employers received notices that their existing policies didn't meet ACA standards and weren't being renewed. As expected, the Administration provided a variety of accommodations to these employers.

The best news is that the majority of states that had not previously expanded Medicaid announced intentions to do so for 2015. The bad news is that the newly elected Congress is even less likely to pass any legislative "fixes" than the previous Congress.

(Gail Wilensky has served as director of Medicare and Medicaid and she has chaired the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. She is now an economist and senior fellow at Project HOPE.)


3) ***ANTHONY WRIGHT:

By the end of 2014, more than 2 million Californians will be enrolled in new coverage options under the Affordable Care Act. A million will have coverage through our exchange, Covered California, following its second open enrollment period. More will be getting coverage through our Medicaid program. Already 700,000 newly covered people have insurance through an early expansion of Medicaid; by February it will be more than 1 million.

Washington-based media will continue to hyperventilate about Obamacare, mistakenly using every website glitch or early enrollment figure as a binary barometer of the law’s success or failure. But even in a state like California—where the website (mostly) works, premiums came in below expectations, and enrollments are on target—officials aren't putting up a “Mission Accomplished” banner yet. Just as rollout problems were never indications of the ACA’s demise, progress to date is not proof the job is finished.

As elections are about the future, not the past, I predict Obamacare itself won't be a major factor in future contests. The debate will be “What’s Next?”

In states that have been more hostile to the law, at least some officials will change their minds about the Medicaid expansion, allowing it go forward.

In states like California that have embraced the law, officials and supporters of reform will focus on improving the law. Among the questions they will address:

1. How can we ensure a safety-net that survives and thrives—to provide primary and preventative care to the remaining uninsured, including undocumented immigrants that were excluded from the ACA?

2. How can we further regulate the insurance market—beyond basic steps like banning pre-existing condition exclusions—so that insurers compete not on avoiding sick people, but on cost, quality, customer service and prevention? How else can we make the health industry more accountable for improved quality and reduced cost of care? California is likely to debate (through bills, the budget, and the ballot box) more oversight of networks, transparency of health spending, rate regulation, investments in prevention and public health, and more.

While we will concentrate on the unfinished work of implementing the law in 2014, the work to fulfill the full promise of the law will be just beginning.

(Anthony Wright is director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy organization.)


4) ***SEAN PARNELL:

Although it’s unlikely that 2014 will be as bad for the ACA as the initial rollout was, the law still faces significant challenges in the New Year.

The biggest hurdle will be enrollment, particularly among the young and healthy. Deductibles are high, premium subsidies generally aren’t available except to the poorest, the tax for being uninsured is low, and the young have always been overrepresented among the uninsured. This will continue to be the case in 2014 and beyond.

Late in 2014, insurers will announce premiums for 2015. They will be higher, inflicting a political price on Democrats. Expect more creative interpretations and regulatory flexibility out of the Obama administration in order to smooth over more unintended consequences of the ACA.

There will be more Americans who pay directly for more of their health care. The ACA is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to leave 30 million people uninsured, and tens of millions more will get high-deductible plans through exchanges or their employers. These self-pay patients will demand price transparency and discounts for paying in full at the time of treatment, and innovative entrepreneurs will step up to cater to them while ignoring the traditional third-party payment system.

At the end of 2014, I expect to see many advocates of the ACA look back and conclude that while it’s too early to call the law a failure, the meager results fall far short of what was hoped for.

(Sean Parnell is author of The Self-Pay Patient and a writer at www.theselfpaypatient.com)


5) ***DAVID BLUMENTAL:

The most recent CBO projections for ACA coverage, from May 2013, suggested there would be 7 million new privately insured Americans and 9 million new enrollees in Medicaid/CHIP by the end of 2014.

Through December 30, 1.9 million Americans had enrolled in private coverage through the federal and state marketplaces. As of December 20, 627,000 had enrolled in Medicaid/Chip. Let’s assume that by January 1 the numbers stand at about 2.0 million for private insurance (30 percent of the CBO 2014 target) and 1 million for Medicaid (11 percent).

The real deadline, however, for the first ACA open enrollment period is March 31, 2014, when penalties kick in. It would be reasonable to expect enrollment during February-March, 2014 to equal the 2013 numbers, bringing the total for private enrollees to about 4.0 million or 60 percent of CBO projections

Medicaid/CHIP numbers are harder to predict because enrollment can proceed continuously over the year. Assuming 1.5 million Americans enroll in Medicaid/CHIP during 2014, participation in public plans would come to 2.5 million or about 28 percent of projected.

Including the 3 million young people under 26 who have gained coverage under their parents’ plans in 2013, these projections would mean that a minimum of 10 million Americans would have become newly insured under provisions of the Affordable Care Act by the end of 2014.

As for costs, the ACA is given some credit (deserved or not) for keeping growth in overall health care costs below historical rates. However, times of rising personal wealth have always been times of rising health care spending. If the economy experiences strong GDP growth in 2014, growth in health spending is also likely to increase beyond the 2012 level of 0.8 percent per capita. A reasonable prediction: both GDP and health care will grow in the 2-3 percent range.

As a percent of GDP, health care expenses would remain unchanged at the 18 percent level.

This would have been viewed as a big accomplishment only a few years ago, but that was then.

(David Blumenthal, who has been a professor of medicine at Harvard and the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, is now president of the Commonwealth Fund.)


6) ***TEVI TROY:

One year from now, the Affordable Care Act will be hobbled but still there. The hangover from the botched rollout will continue to haunt the program, but the website will be in better shape, and an increasing number of people will be getting subsidized insurance via the exchanges. At the same time, sticker shock will continue, especially among those without access to subsidized rates, and take-up rates will continually be lower than the administration predicted.

This will lead to a situation where Democrats are touting the number of covered individuals and calling the ACA a success, while Republicans will highlight the increased costs, lower than expected numbers of covered individuals, and the roll out problems to determine that the plan is a failure. The answer to the question of whether the law is a success or a failure will come from the employer-based market. If employer-based plans continue without significant disruptions, the ACA will weather the storm; but if individuals in the employer-based market lose their insurance or see major changes in their plans, the ACA’s political troubles will worsen.

In addition, one year from now, Republicans will be pleased with their election gains in the House and Senate, but will also realize that, even with their political victory, they cannot repeal the ACA while a lame duck President Obama remains in office.

This will set up the 2016 election as yet another do-or-die test for the ACA.

(Tevi Troy is a former Deputy Secretary of HHS and the author of What Jefferson Read, Ike Watched, and Obama Tweeted: 200 Years of Popular Culture in the White House.)


7) ***JOHN Z. AYANIAN:

The most notable change will be 12 million newly insured Americans. In May, 2013 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected 9 million low-income adults would gain coverage in states opting to expand Medicaid during 2014, and another 7 million Americans would obtain private insurance through new federal and state health insurance exchanges. However, because of incomplete ACA awareness among eligible adults and early technical problems with the exchanges, I expect overall enrollment gains in 2014 will be 12 million instead of 16 million Americans.

A second major change over the next year will be much better functioning insurance exchanges. Major problems faced by HealthCare.gov and many new state exchanges will be essentially resolved through effective technical solutions.

The ACA’s future hinges on the U.S. Senate elections in 2014. If Democrats retain control of the Senate, ACA implementation will continue largely as planned. In contrast, if Republicans control both the Senate and House in 2015, Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress will agree to change several features of the ACA. Essential benefit requirements for insurers will be loosened, financial penalties for uninsured individuals will be lightened, insurance subsidies will be reduced or eliminated for some currently eligible households (those at 300-400% of the federal poverty level), and the medical device tax will be eliminated. Because President Obama will veto a full ACA repeal, its two core components—Medicaid expansion in 25 or more states and subsidized private coverage for most currently eligible households—will be preserved until the 2016 Presidential election.

(John Z. Ayanian is a professor of internal medicine and director of the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at the University of Michigan.)


8) ***DON MCANNE:

There is no doubt that, in 2014, we will see enough individuals enrolled in Medicaid, in the exchange plans, and some new enrollment in employer-sponsored plans (to avoid the penalty, though small this year), that the Affordable Care Act will be considered a success. But success is not measured by enrollment in insurance plans but rather by the ability to obtain access to affordable health care.

Not only will tens of millions remain uninsured, those insured that need health care will face financial barriers of high deductibles and other cost sharing, and many will face lack of choice due to narrow provider networks. Unavoidable care provided out of network could result in catastrophic expenses. We will continue to hear stories of people facing excess costs and network problems that will prevent them from accessing care of their choosing.

Already, from both the left and the right, there is much discussion of single payer (improved Medicare for all) as an inevitability once it is realized how poorly functioning will be our fragmented, dysfunctional system of financing health care. We will not see the threshold for action in changing to single payer reached this year, but within a few years, demand for change will occur.

The feeble recommendations from the right would only make things worse, partly by diminishing what little protection we do have, so there isn’t much left other than single payer. Once enough people understand that all of us can have free choice of care that is affordable through equitable public funding, they will demand single payer.

(Don McCanne is a senior health policy fellow with Physicians for a National Health Plan.)

Sources: The New Republic; TIME Magazine

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! WELCOME TO 2014!!

#HAPPYNEWYEAR

It's New Year's Eve!!! YEAH!!!!

GOD is Good and I'm looking forward to 2014!

Tonight I will be attending "WATCH NIGHT SERVICE" at my Church & enjoying myself among Friends & Family.

Of course I won't forget to PRAY for JAHI MCMATH.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.........BE SAFE.......& GOD BLESS EVERYONE!!