Why Is White House Stonewalling On Benghazi? By REP. DANA ROHRABACHER

More than six months since Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated by terrorists in Benghazi, the Obama administration is still trying to keep a lid on information about the attack.

Congress and the American people need to know what happened the night of Sept. 11, 2012. Who did the killing and what was their motive? Why wasn’t help sent? And why did the administration lie about who was responsible?

Members of Congress have asked hundreds of questions at hearings conducted by several investigative committees, but many of the most significant have been left unanswered.

Information detailing what happened before, during and after the attack on the Benghazi consulate has been kept from the American people.

The identities of those Americans who were there, including those who were wounded, has been kept from congressional investigators who have a constitutional responsibility to oversee U.S. foreign policy in situations exactly like this. Besides the ambassador, three other Americans died in the terrorist assault.

President Barack Obama and his entourage appear to believe there is nothing wrong with presenting false information to the American people. At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in an agitated tone that it didn’t matter what had been said about the attack in the days after it took place.

For more than a week, high-level officials had deliberately misinformed the American people about the circumstance surrounding the deadly attack launched on the anniversary of 9/11.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:

How Obamacare Will Distort the Health-Care Market By Lanhee Chen

President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats sold many Americans on the Affordable Care Act largely by emphasizing two arguments: The law would help to reduce overall health-care costs, and it would provide health insurance to those who, for financial or health reasons, cannot get it now.

Unfortunately, both of these arguments are flawed. The law creates market distortions that will significantly raise premiums and costs for many Americans — including some middle- income families. And there are less costly, less distortionary and less intrusive ways to address the problem of the uninsured.

Two recent independent and nonpartisan studies help to explain how the law fails in its mission.

The first is from the Society of Actuaries, a group representing professionals who measure and manage financial risk. The main conclusion is that individuals and families who purchase their health insurance in the non-group (basically the non-employer-based) market will have to pay higher premiums. This is because the law will increase by 32 percent the costs that insurers must cover for health-care services, the largest driver of health-insurance premiums.

The second study, commissioned by Covered California, the California entity responsible for setting up the state’s health- insurance exchange, speaks directly to premium rates. Isolating the impact that market changes caused by the new federal law will have, the study concludes that premiums for Californians will rise by an average of 14 percent. Increases will be most pronounced for those families who currently have health insurance and are making more than $94,000 or so — for them, premiums may rise by an average of 30 percent.

Read more from Bloomberg.com

Bank Crisis! by Murray N. Rothbard

There has been a veritable revolution in the attitude of the nation’s economists, as well as the public, toward our banking system. Ever since 1933, it was a stern dogma–a virtual article of faith–among economic textbook authors, financial writers, and all establishment economists from Keynesians to Friedmanites, that our commercial banking system was super-safe. Because of the wise establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, that dread scourge–the bank run–was a thing of the reactionary past. Depositors are now safe because the FDIC “insures,” that is, guarantees, all bank deposits. Those of us who kept warning that the banking system was inherently unsound and even insolvent were considered nuts and crackpots, not in tune with the new dispensation.

But since the collapse of the S&Ls, a catastrophe destined to cost the taxpayers between a half-trillion and a trillion-and-a-half dollars, this Pollyanna attitude has changed. It is true that by liquidating the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation into the FDIC, the Establishment has fallen back on the FDIC, its last line of defense, but the old assurance is gone. All the pundits and moguls are clearly whistling past the graveyard.

In 1985, however, the bank-run–supposedly consigned to bad memories and old movies on television–was back in force, replete with all the old phenomena: night-long lines waiting for the bank to open, mendacious assurances by the bank’s directors that the bank was safe and everyone should go home, insistence by the public on getting their money out of the bank, and subsequent rapid collapse. As in 1932-33, the governors of the respective states closed down the banks to prevent them from having to pay their sworn debts.

Read more from Mises Institute

From a comment line:

NEVER FORGET until we find out —-
WHO gave the Stand Down order – and WHY?
WHY was the Benghazi Consulate NOT given the security they requested MONTHS before and after a few terrorist attacks?
WHAT was Stevens doing there?
WHO are the survivors?
WHERE are the survivors?
WHY have they been hidden?
WHAT can they tell us that Obozo wants to be kept SECRET?

And many more questions the Congress either DID NOT ASK or were NOT ANSWERED


If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free! – P. J. O’Rourke